Manhattan 1984

Etherwalk writes "The New York Times is reporting on developments in the quest to charge driving fees for all vehicles headed below 86th Street in Manhattan. Notably absent from any part of the discussion is that a record is made of every car or truck that enters, together with the vehicle ownership information and the date and time of travel — either as part of EZ-Pass or in license-plate photos taken for subsequent billing."

Funny

Thing is, I discussed this with my US cousin a few months back, and told him how in the Netherlands, we had all sorts of systems in place already to monitor traffic for billing and speeding registration purposes, using cameras that read license plates. He was sure that, for privacy reasons alone, such systems would never fly in the States.

Re:Funny

If there ever was a treshold that would stop this due to privacy reasons, it has long been passed. The German Autobahns have a huge system covering almost all the Autobahns tracking trucks for billing reasons. It is now still forbidden by law to use the system for law enforcement, the tracking is done independently from police databases. Though, as recently one police officer got killed at a tank stop, for which the offenders could have been caught using this system, and with the paranoid Schäuble as minister of interior, it will probably not take long before the police gets full control over that database. Face it, registrations like this are pretty harmless on itself, but also a part of the slow and seemingly unstoppable, erosion of privacy.

Re:Funny

Quite, the law was recently changed in the UK to allow the police to use the motoway ANPR system to track any suspect. Before the change they could only use it to track "terrorists".

Re:Funny

The only highways which have trajectory control are the A12 between Utrecht and Woerden and the A2 between Utrecht and Amsterdam. There are also mobile systems, but they are only employed on provincial roads in Flevoland. So this company probably got its information somewhere else, possibly in violation of the rules of conduct put forward by the College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (the authority for protection of personal data).

Re:Funny

People don't die due to speeding as they used to, Stockholm traffic isn't jammed every god damned day and the environment is happy happy which also means lives saved in the long run. Doesn't that hold any value when compared to privacy?

I'm going on the presumption you have never been to Manhattan so I'll try not to make too much fun of you.

First, the only way anyone can speed in Manhattan, during normal business hours, is if they are on a bike. Traffic is for all intents and purposes, a crawl during the day. There are a few minor exceptions such as Fifth Ave or so where, if you time the lights correctly and are going the correct speed, you can hit all the green lights. But then, so does everyone else in the pack you're traveling with so it's a zero gain.

Second, reducing the number of vehicles below 86th Street in Manhattan will have a very negligible effect on pollution. Considering Manhattan is across the river from New Jersey, and NJ is known for its concentration of industrial and chemical businesses, guess what happens when the wind blows from the west? Not to mention the sheer amount of grime that has built up over the decades which goes airborne in the hot weather (as we recently experienced).

Finally, one of many reasons the Founding Fathers of my country decided to part ways from merry old England was because of privacy. In those times, the Crown could send troops or other officials into your home on a whim, without a warrant, just to see if you were doing anything wrong. It was the Crown, it could do what it wanted. That is why there is that part in our Constitution which specifically says the government must get a warrant to do a search.

So no, giving up our right to privacy (despite Scalia saying it doesn't exist) is not a good trade off. Granted, the vast majority of the unwashed masses don't know squat about their rights except three; right to free speech, right to religion and right to bear arms, but even then they're too brainwashed and kept in a perpetual state of fear to realize that all the other rights our Founding Fathers wanted us to have are essentially null and void at this time.

Maybe you don't mind being tracked everywhere you go but I know I do. If someone wants to know where I was at a particular date and time, they can ask me. If I think it's a legitimate question, I'll answer them. If not, it's none of their business.

I know I've said this before but James Madison nailed it when he said: If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

Re:Funny

will give up their privacy for a discount card at the supermarket.

There is a big difference between voluntarilly giving up your privacy and being *required* to do so though.

What?

Jesus. Ok, it's all right to have a little bit of suspicion with regards to motives here, but "Manhattan 1984"? That's a bit much, isn't it?

Also, how does this qualify as having to do with Our Rights Online?

Re:What?

In the old days, a stalker had to take time off work to follow a victim and find out every place she went.

With comprehensive vehicle tracking, all he has to do is suborn someone with access to EZ-Pass records.

Too hypothetical? Then consider something that's already happened, divorce lawyers using EZ-Pass records [csmonitor.com].

Agreed, though, calling it 1984 is hyperbole as long as there are feasible alternatives to having an EZ-Pass.

Re:What?

Agreed, though, calling it 1984 is hyperbole as long as there are feasible alternatives to having an EZ-Pass.

Well, no. That's like saying the sentence "Microsoft is a monopoly" is hyperbole while alternatives to Windows exist.

Re:What?

so now you just walk or take public transit. last i checked there was no toll for walking or taking transit to enter manhattan.

you have to understand that driving is not necessary in places like new york. don't want to be tracked, don't drive. people who use the ez pass do it out of choice. you aren't required to use one on the highways. you can just pay cash at the tolls and not be tracked. or if you're still worried, take the bus or train. driving a car is not a necessity or requirement, it's a luxury.

Re:What?

Jesus. Ok, it's all right to have a little bit of suspicion with regards to motives here, but "Manhattan 1984"? That's a bit much, isn't it?
br> Also, how does this qualify as having to do with Our Rights Online?

Ignorance is bliss, Darklye, isn't it?

You just may want to have a look at Germany. You might or might not remember the fuzz about the German "Toll Collect" system introduced a couple of years ago. A definitely overblown system being able to measure the car, count axles, shooting fotos, talking to board computers etc.

Everyone thought that this was a crazy amount of technology thrown at a problem so simple as collecting toll. Everyone laughed at the tech consortium which was not able to deliver in time

First voices arose why the contracts were not publicly viewable. No freedom of information for this very contract... Still everyone insisted that this technology will solely be used for collecting toll.

Meanwhile, things changed. A total surveillance infrastructure being able to track individual cars not only with the help of the installed board computer, but just by mere picture recognition (mind you, Germany introduced machine-readable using OCR fonts -- of course all for the sake of increased security against plate counterfeiting -- plates already in the 90s). And while the law still is active that the infrastructure may be solely used for toll collecting, it gets constant fire -- and it will probably only take another legislature period until it falls and finally, all the authorities will also have access to this data.

Your turn, Mr. Spock.

London 1984? ;)

We've had a similar system running in London for a while now here in the UK.

Now you too can look forward to people using fake license plates to avoid charges, or people who have been nowhere near the area being charged and/or fined because the number plate recognition software read a letter or number wrong.

Re:London 1984? ;)

Now you too can look forward to people using fake license plates to avoid charges

I'm especially amused by the people walking around London with car number plates printed across their T-shirts (yes, the cameras do pick them up and charge people.) Unlike displaying a fake plate on your car, wearing a T-shirt with a number plate printed on it is not illegal.

So what?

We've had this in Central London for ages. It's called, slightly euphemistically, the Congestion Charge. All vehicles entering a zone in Central London have their registration plates recorded by cameras. It's no big deal.

Re:So what?

Hello Mr Troll,

No big deal?? I moved out of London because of the cost

Uh-hu. If you lived in London, you'd appreciate how expensive living here is, and that the congestion charge is inconsequential compared to the cost of a mortgage, or even renting a decent place. It's a paltry 8 quid a day and that's only if you happen to drive in to zone 1 (which is up to 20 GBP an hour for parking, and there are bugger all spaces, god knows why you'd even try) - and that's not including discounts.

It did noticeably cut congestion initially, but it's crept right back up again because the charge is so low (it costs far more if you actually want to park your car). Frankly, as Jeremy Clarkson has noted (tongue in cheek) it would need to be about 50 GBP a day to hold any hope of getting city boys to take any notice whatsoever. Even then that's going to be about the same as getting Taxi's about the place, and many will prefer the car.

I think it ought to be increased significantly (and given the narrow streets and the volume of people, closing off some of the road to traffic (or at least to buses only) would be a step in the right direction.

This is relatively benign ...

The general idea is that road authorities should be able bill people for their actual use of the roads, with the price depending on when and where they drive and the characteristics of their vehicle.

Technically this is already feasible by ensuring that every single vehicle is equipped with a GPS receiver and a transponder that transmits its identity and its itinerary (in time and space} to collection stations.

As long as there is no congestion, and there are sufficient funds to keep all roads in good condition, the question doesn't appear. It becomes very different however when congestion starts blocking the grid, and when it's hard to find enough money for maintenance (of bridges for example}.

Under current conditions however, there is a strong incentive to toll. And yes ... there are privacy aspects.

Where electronically transmitted itineraries could be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping, someone has to do the billing ... and that someone can only do that if they can link the vehicle with a driver. And hence they will also be able to link vehicle, diver, and itinerary.

It's not quite there yet, but the signs are that it's only a matter of time. Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening.

After all ... what's privacy in the face of financial incentives?

But rest assured ... there probably will be a capped-fee paying option for those who really don't want their movements tracked and who can afford to pay the national maximum road price per mile where- and whenever they drive. Those subscribes don't need to submit their itineraries ... their subscriber ID will do.

The only snag is that the maximum road price will be about 20$ per mile. If your car does 50 mph, that would be 1000$ per hour maximum. So anyone willing (and able} to pay 365 x 24 x 1000$ per year would be allowed un-metered driving any time and any place. Anybody else will have to submit their itineraries and pay a road-use charge.

Oh yes ... and don't bore us with complaints that you already pay gasoline tax. What you *pay* in unimportant. What counts is the difference between what's needed for upkeep and congestion management and what's currently available.

Re:This is relatively benign ...

I've got a simpler solution: all road maintenence funds should come from gas taxes. If you use more, you pay more, pretty easy.

Good

If it keeps the paranoid from driving their cars around Manhattan, that's a bonus reduction in traffic. I'm all for it. In fact, publish the data if you can't satisfactorily explain why you need to take your car in. Make it hurt to not take public transport.

Revenue or Surveillance?

Or possibly both.

This appears to be a product of the thinking that the "market can regulate anything". Everywhere there is congestion, plans seeking to regulate it through differential charging are springing up all over the place. The revenues typically more than cover the cost of implementation in their first year. My opinion is that these schemes just take yet more money from the average Joe who works, because he typically doesn't have any choice as to where and when he drives when commuting to work - traffic pressure on its own is more than sufficient incentive to stop driving in rush hour if it's at all possible.

Of course, you do get the highly desirable (for the intelligence community) side-effect of being able to track all vehicles present in such a schema.

Those worried for the privacy of New Yorkers should spare a thought for those of us in Europe, as our governments are presently colluding on a system that will mandate the fitting of a GPS tracker with a cellular modem to each and every motor vehicle that will log all movement. We already have number plate cameras on most major motorways (ostensibly to check to see if untaxed vehicles are moving), and a congestion charging scheme in London that has been so successful in terms of revenue that other metropolitan areas are queuing up to see who can be next.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/ [dft.gov.uk]

We already have this in the UK

For areas of central London (UK) we already have a system in place called congestion charging. Basically whenever you enter/exit one of the zones, cameras hooked up with number plate recognition record you.

The system works reasonably well, but it doesn't really stop people driving in the "congestion" zones and most people really dislike the system, for example, if you don't realize you've driven through a congestion charging zone you end up with a bill in the post for more than it would normally cost (you get discounts for paying same-day or prior to entering the zone).

Now - the mayor is proposing to charge different rates based on what type of car you have - small effecient compacts would pay nothing or next to nothing, while massive SUVs or anything with a 3+ liter engine would pay upto £25 GBP per day ($50 USD).

The most likely outcome of this? Poorer people will use public transport, while for the richer bigger fines will just affirm their social status, or make them consider getting smaller cars.

Oh - and I'm not mentioning the use of the system to track criminals, bail jumpers or "potential terrorists", because it's happening frequently and is just another way that the government is abusing the powers they gave themselfs by-proxy.

Re:We already have this in the UK

The system works reasonably well, but it doesn't really stop people driving in the "congestion" zones

Traffic has been reduced by 26% at the last count, so it has in fact stopped some people driving in the congestion zones, as intended. 'Reductions in congestion inside the charging zone over the whole period since the introduction of the scheme now average 26 percent. ' - from the 2007 report of Tfl.

Now - the mayor is proposing to charge different rates based on what type of car you have - small effecient compacts would pay nothing or next to nothing, while massive SUVs or anything with a 3+ liter engine would pay upto £25 GBP per day ($50 USD). The most likely outcome of this? Poorer people will use public transport, while for the richer bigger fines will just affirm their social status, or make them consider getting smaller cars.

I believe this is the intended effect, I doubt very much people would use fines as status symbols (proof of this?), and if they do, their stupidity would fund further public transport. No one who is poor in London can afford a car anyway (if you can afford a car in London, you have to pay parking, road tax, and fuel, not to mention upkeep), so they'll be happier with improved public transport.

As for the surveillance aspect - I'd be more concerned about their efforts to extend the length of time the police can hold people without trial (currently being misused to hold protesters against airport expansion), and routine use of torture [amazon.co.uk] (though thank goodness its use in court has been banned, much to the UK government's chagrin). Potential tracking of road use is the least of our worries.

I have no problem with this kind of thing

I find that most people who reject number plate tracking, CCTV cameras, automatic logging and vehicle license MOT test (legal UK vehicle check to ensure it is road worthy) and the like generally have something to hide.

Whilst I agree there must be safeguards, it seems that every day there are crimes solved, prevented or swiftly responded to by this kind of technology.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_televi sion#Crime_registration [wikipedia.org]

from the FA above:
"Claims that they reduce or deter crime have not been clearly borne out by independent studies[2], though the government claims that when properly used they do result in deterrence, rather than displacement. One clear effect that has been noted is a reduction of car crime when used in car parks. Cameras have also been installed in taxis to deter violence against drivers, and also in mobile police surveillance vans. In some cases CCTV cameras have become a target of attacks themselves. Middlesbrough council have recently installed "Talking CCTV" cameras in their busy town-centre. It is a system pioneered in Wiltshire which allows CCTV operators to communicate directly with the offenders they spot. This idea is first known to have appeared in George Orwell's famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The use of CCTV in the United States is less common, though increasing, and generally meets stronger opposition. In 1998 3,000 CCTV systems were found in New York City. There are 2,200 CCTV systems in Chicago.

The most measurable effect of CCTV is not on crime prevention, but on detection and prosecution. Several notable murder cases have been solved with the use of CCTV evidence, notably the Jamie Bulger case, and catching David Copeland, the Soho nail bomber. The use of CCTV to track the movements of missing children is now routine.

After the bombings of London on 7 July 2005, CCTV footage was used to identify the bombers. The media was surprised that few tube trains actually had CCTV cameras, and there were some calls for this to be increased.

On July 22, 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station. CCTV footage has debunked some police claims. Because of the follow-up bombing attempts the previous day, some of the tapes had been supposedly removed from CCTV cameras for study, and they were not functional. The use of DVR technology may solve this problem."

In the UK the police are building up a large DNA database from everybody charged with a criminal offence (now nearly 5m entries) this solves crimes regularly. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3232744.stm [bbc.co.uk] as an example.

Bottom line, I have no problem with this technology if safeguards are in place and it makes the streets a safer place to walk.

The problem is ..

This consolidates power in the hands of government. Right now, the UK government can be offensive, inappropriate, incompetent, all the traditional sins of government, but they do stop short of being outright openly evil. Alas, government is not a static reliable thing. Many of the functions of government are being gleefully handed over to corporations, either by market-worshipping dingbats who genuinely believe that the market can regulate itself, or by corrupt arseholes who just want the stock options.

Now, imagine the same systems in the hands of a major corporation. Now imagine that the corporation has very few legal restrictions on what it does. Now imagine you have pissed them off.

If that didn't scare you, you have a serious lack of imagination.

Re:I have no problem with this kind of thing

Actually there is a lot of sense to that. It has been proposed before that a government DNA database would virtually solve crime - obviously this is not true but it would be a very useful tool for detection and prevention.

But before you go off on one and start ranting lets look at the facts...

From the Home Office: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/usin g-science/dna-database/ [homeoffice.gov.uk]

"Any intrusion on personal privacy is proportionate to the benefits that are gained.

By the end of 2005, about 200,000 samples had been retained that would have been destroyed before the 2001 change in legislation. 8,000 of these samples matched with DNA taken from crime scenes, involving nearly 14,000 offences, including murders and rapes.

In 2005-06 45,000 crimes were matched against records on the DNA Database; including 422 homicides (murders and manslaughters) and 645 rapes."

Thats 45 thousand crimes in one year. Think about that for a while.

And an anti database view: http://www.genewatch.org/HumanGen/Publications/Rep orts/NationalDNADatabase.pdf [genewatch.org]

"Errors and false DNA matches have led to miscarriages of justice, and these can create major difficulties for those wrongfully convicted because, like fingerprint evidence, DNA is widely regarded as absolutely conclusive, meaning that those without strong alibi evidence will tend to be presumed guilty. At the moment the DNA database itself can be viewed largely (but not entirely) as a growing suspect list that is mainly used to check samples from new and unsolved crime, but the existing data can be (and has been) used for broader purposes, and the UK practice of retaining the sample as well as the data allows it to be used for further testing for other purposes as the science develops.

We're seeing glimpses of what is possible with familial testing, which establishes links to family members where the suspect's DNA might not be on the database, and although the first instance of this was viewed as a coup, if used widely the procedure would find relatives you didn't know about, and reveal that people weren't related to the people they thought they were. So what have you got to hide? You don't know, and maybe you don't want to know."

--- I am *not* parroting a government line. Nor am I proposing GATACCA. I am simply stating that to dismiss this without thought on quaint and paranoid lines seems irrational and foolish. I realized that this viewpoint would run counter to many of the /. readers (yes thats a sweeping generalization) but it really is what I think.

Catching up

As a British subject, it's nice to see our American allies catching up in the war on citizens^H^H^H^H^H^H terror.

George Orwell is one of the greatest British heroes to ever live, and now his ideas are spreading around the world. This must surely be England's finest hour.

But will it aid in traffic flow?

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but this could be a much better system than a toll booth system. Either way it seems they are looking to make the traffic congested area a toll zone. Toll booths create a stop and go traffic nightmare. Creating a system that is automated (and like most things automated NOT perfect) would at least be a solid solution to not only DETER atleast some traffic, but also not hinder traffic flow. Now of course people will be screaming about how such a system will be used.

Obviously one major problematic scenario is law enforcement going wild with such a resource. You would hope there would be a secure system to prevent abuse, but it creates the infinite problem of who will watch the watchers, who will watch the watchers watching the watchers, etc. As long as the system does not needlessly collect data (such as a blanket camera system that tracks ALL movements within the zone) I dont think most people would mind. You have to remember that even at tollbooths your car is caught on camera (security cameras). True, security cameras dont have the retention this system would require (for billing purposes it would be atleast a month depending on monthly/quartly/yearly pricing) but again, imposes limitations on the use of such data could aid in ensuring the privacy of drivers.

Sorry to go anti-1984 here, but this system is far less frightening than say a CCTV blanket system like that already purposed for many downtown locations around the US, and already in wide spread use in England. While the article was scant on the operational details of the system, it felt like it was going to be used solely to track motorists entering an area and just for billing purposes (as much as we can trust that!).

Stockholm running it already

After a earlier trial in Stockholm, Sweden the system is back online. The automatic license plate reading system is developed by IBM and only scans license plates when you drive into the toll zone or leaving it. It created a 20% decrease in traffic during the earlier trial and the average speed increased. The air pollution levels was reduced. The bus system, trains and subway noticed an increase in passengers but travel times was reduced still.

The information is kept until payment has been made, when it's removed from the system. With only 2 weeks to pay not much information can be recovered from the database.

With all the alarming reports about climate change and greenhouse gases it's probably a good idea to implement road tolls all over the world. In Stockholm environment friendly cars don't have to pay the road tolls. What is defined as a environment friendly car is subject to change every year as development goes forward.

Already Done, Surprisiingly in..

Texas has "upgraded" some of their toll booths with a similar technology. For about a month after they first started using it, I can remember the reports of people from out of state being fined, and likewise for what should be a relatively simple system.

Unfortunately, the complexity came from something that was "outside" (figuratively speaking) the system.

That being said, what's so newsworthy about this? The fact that it's in New York?

It's when the government starts setting up cameras everywhere to monitor people that you need to be concerned. First it starts with tolls, then red lights, then every street corner, then it starts with measuring the velocity of a moving automobile, then RFID chips, and THEN an Orwellian society might come into play.

That being said, the tin foil hat goes on tonight.

where have I heard this idea before?

Oh yeah, in that last bastion of freedom: the UK. If it was restricted to just London I could live with that as who in their right mind would want to go there anyway but this broken thinking is spreading to other cities. If that wasn't enough we now have ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) on all the motorways, some a-roads and I've seen it at pertol stations as well. Welcome to the police state. Have a nice stay.

What I don't get

Is how there is not any outrage, but there is acceptability, for the corupt nature of the whole situation. Gas taxes are supposed to pay for roads (maint & repair). That would go to figure, you use public roads, you should pay for them. But now here's a situation where the Federal Govt is giving NY 300+ million to charge people more money to use _PUBLIC_ roads. I guess "Public" no longer means paid for by the people's taxes, but means, paid for by the people's taxes, and rented out to the folks who can afford it.

Rerouting congestion does not solve the problem. NIMBY all over again. Those cars have to go somewhere. And as for the folks who think that public transportation is good enough, that could be viewed as another freedom taken away. Folks drive for many reasons, one being a sense of going where they want, when they want.

How is this any different...

than what they're doing in with the Narrows bridge in Washington state? I think they're taking pictures of license plates and fining people who skip the toll.

What changes?

Do people really think that this changes their privacy? Lots of folks have mentioned the congestion charging here in London, but even before it was introduced I got a letter from the police to say that their cameras had seen my car in an area where a murder had been committed, and had I seen anything? If they want to track folks in Manhattan I bet they already have the technology in place.

Doing it properly

There are ways to do this while keeping privacy in mind and largely intact.

To take where I live as an example. I can pick a manually operated lane and pay via coin toss or handing cash to a human being. These lanes do not record anything unless you try to blast through without paying.

I am not 100% positive such an anonymous alternative is required by law, but I'm fairly certain of it.

If opting for a transponder to avoid having to stop, there are strict limits as to how long identifiable information may be stored. The main concern is of course to register the amount of passes so your transponder is deducted properly. The specific booth or time is not required to fulfill that need. However, since you are entitled to complain, normally the specifics are stored for a short period of time for reference (you have full access to this information by contacting the company or logging into their site). You can opt out of that as well, but that obviously means you have less to point at if you do wish to complain.

Now, I do not live in the US. I trust the oversight system in place where I live to handle this properly. They not only have the power to shut down projects not respecting privacy, they can do the same to government surveillance experiments. And they have done so several times in recent history. I'd not put the same faith in the current US administration.

Privacy Laws

I think the reason these systems are a little more acceptable in Europe is that there are strong privacy laws in place. Yes, there is a lot of data being collected, which could *potentially* be used malicously, but privacy laws prevent this from happening (for the most part). Every organisation who collects this data has to be open about what they're collecting, and what they're using it for. Any deviation from this can result in severe penalties.

In the end, collecting and analysing data is an extremely valuable and useful thing. It benefits not just the companies who collect it, but potentially society as a whole. For example, the London C-charge records data on vehicles for pretty much the same reason as what's being proposed in Manhattan. The positive impact is a huge reduction in congestion and pollution in central London. These types of benefits have to be weighed against the potential for mis-use.

Unfortunately, in the US, people don't have the same level of legal privacy protection as the rest of the developed world (not just Europe). Perhaps that's the real problem here.

Toronto

Toronto has had a system like this in place for years, on its only toll road, Highway 407. If you don't have an 'EZ Pass' transponder in your car, then a camera snaps your license plate.

How else would they bill you?

Well, I guess they could open toll booths and slow traffic to a creep, but I think this is a good progression. Besides, they aren't tracking You, they're just tracking customers. Which is you. Yes. You.

Standard NYT FUD.

This was already shot down in the NY state senate weeks ago. Gotta love the Times.

A.E. Van Yogt covered it

Computer Eye, formerly Computerworld (1983); backcover [earthlink.net] with synopsis.

Just a reminder [slashdot.org].

CC.

It helped me

This wasn't in Manhattan, but I did live in central NY up until last year. I had an EZPass for the thruway for years, but before I had one, I actually received a ticket from the thruway system. It was on Valentine's day, they insisted I ran through the EZPass lane without paying. (I had previously never had an EZPass). I know for a fact that was false, because my wife and I had an optometrist's appointment, we were going to go out for dinner afterwards. Well, they had dialated our pupils so we just drove home... nowhere near the thruway.

Anyhow, to make a long story short, my means of contacting friends who had friends who worked for the thruway, I eventually got in touch with a real person. By this time several weeks had gone by and they escalated the small fine into preparing to take away my license. My friend-with-a-friend suggested that I ask for the picture of my car, as they take pictures, as you go through the lane. Sure enough, either my car type didn't match, or they didn't have the picture. It was dropped and I never heard another thing again.

I honestly think a few weeks prior I had thrown out some old license plates (those in NY know you're supposed to recycle them, but also you're supposed to deface/damage them) ... I think someone had stolen them from the recycle bin and ran through the ezpass lane.

Just an example of how some crazy surveillance crap saved me from a fine or getting my license revoked.

1984?

We aren't talking about graphiti and squeegee guys?

People-friendly zones

If you have ever been to Manhattan, then you would know that there are large areas of it where cars and trucks just do not belong. Parts of it -should- be blocked off to general traffic, and only allow those vehicles which directly support the community. When parking your car costs much more than a night's hotel bill, you know that cars are simply out of place there. Treat the place more like a park, less like a parking lot.

Long, complex sentences still follow the rules.

Notable absent from the FP is that grammar, together with editing - either in form or content.

Well, there goes another one

So much for Freedom of Movement... "Public" travel my eye... /Get a brain morans

Most people in NYC don't drive in Manhattan

The Manhattan 1984 comment is a bit of hyperbole. This system is closer to EZPass for lower Manhattan than other systems. If you were willing to accept EZPass, are you willing to accept this system?

One commenter noted that these are "public" roads, not toll roads. I'm not sure I understand how he draws the distinction. I pay taxes to help maintain both public and toll roads. As a New Yorker, I have no problems with private cars being charged to drive on roads. I've been taking the subway for over a decade and haven't driven for over 15 years. Yet I still have to pay for my "public" train system. Why should drivers be any different?

One of the major points of congestion pricing is to limit the number of cars in lower Manhattan. If you choose not to drive because of a loss of privacy, I think that would be considered a "win."

If you want to squawk about the use of computerized records being used to track people, check out the subway system. Far more people use the subway than use the roads, and through the use of the Metrocard my movements can be tracked throughout the city. That is a far larger invasion of privacy in New York City than any proposed congestion pricing models.

Anyone else think...

That it was a story about life in 1984 NYC? I love that stuff... Boom boxes, walkmen, 3 channels of analog TV (well, maybe a few more in New York), mainframe computers. Those were the days!

Oh the outcry - from a Manhattanite

I'm not really surprised at the amount of outcry over this from people who don't actually live in Manhattan whose principles have no practical problems to contend with.

I probably have more reason than some to oppose this law as I own a motor vehicle and live in Manhattan - though mine is a motorcycle and (in London anyway) they are exempt from congestion pricing. Obviously, I hope they get a similar exemption here, but more to the point:

The New York State legislature recently shot this down. It's in the news because Bloomberg managed to wring some money from the Feds on the condition that the legislature approves it next year by the end of March. It is not a sure thing that this will occur. I consider myself a political pragmatist, and I can't really argue that this isn't a practical solution -- anyone who has ever hopped on a bus or tried to take a cab during rush hour knows that you may as well walk (assuming you can even get a cab then). A previous poster was correct in saying that the only people who can speed in Manhattan are cyclists (bicyclists, not bikers like me...at least not if we want to live). I talked to one bike messenger who can get from Penn Station to Union Square in 2 minutes.

If the idea is that all of us who take public transit (and that's not just the subways) will have a faster/easier time of it, that's a good thing. There are provisions in this bill that funnel a lot of money to the public transit system, which, despite having an awful track record of spending money, would benefit from the $100 million or so it would get -- and that's just the Federal share.

Also, to compare & contrast: unless you are a daily commuter, it costs $4 to take the subway somewhere ($2 each way). The congestion pricing is currently $8 for the day. That's a lot more (duh) but it's not so bad that I wouldn't ever drive through Manhattan -- I'd just make a point not to do it regularly. For anyone who has ever sat in the Lincoln Tunnel, that is perhaps not such a bad thing. Anybody whose destination is Manhattan will bleed $8 out their pores just spending an afternoon here.

As for me -- I'm moving to Brooklyn.

So

Just like being in London then.

(Disclaimer: although I'm British, I live about 200km. from London; and also about as far from the sea is it's possible to get in a country this size.)

Subway

If everyone is so worried about their privacy, then take the subway and pay for your card with cash.

Getting more people to take the subway is the main reason for the congestion plan in the first place.

This changes nothing

You already need to pay a toll to get into Manhattan, across every bridge and tunnel, maybe with the exception of one or two local bridges way up north. So, 'they' already know you are on the island; this just would help narrow down whether you were below 86th. And not very well-they probably won't record when you left. Given that prime Manhattan parking space is as expensive per square foot as prime manhattan real estate, and most traffic in Manhattan is cabs, I doubt this will have the impact they want. It seems to me the biggest impact will be for people who regularly make the trip across 86th street, which might cut down traffic on the George Washington Bridge, and might reduce traffic above 86th, and might get people to take a cab to 86th street and then transit the rest of the way home. It will bring in revenue, which is really what this is about.

data retention

Like many other information gathering systems, my concern is not for the primary legitimate uses. The fact that this data will in all probability be archived as an abstract summary/conclusion instead of the actual evidence means there will be no way to dispute mistakes. Much like when a police officer 'accidently' destroys notes so that his word becomes the primary evidence rather than the recorded observations made at the time. The consequence will be that anyone wishing to dispute a possible mistake will simply be confronted with "the system says your vehicle was there".

At that point, you better have footage from a television news team and a handwritten note from the Pope that he was riding shotgun with you on the other side of town. Anything less, and its your word against the government's expert witness. When this happens YEARS after the supposed incident(s) how are you going to come up with an armorclad alibi?

Store the *recordings themselves* or don't retain the data after it has been used for its DESIGNED purpose.

Manhattan 1984!?

I mean, come on people. I have an EZ-Pass for the Thruway in NY. Every time I go through a toll booth, it gets noted (date, time, plaza #, vehicle). Actually, every plaza that I've seen has a camera system in it for license plate recognition. What the hell is the difference here? Also, anyone here use a credit card? How about a store discount card? Hmm? You can't tell me that the store doesn't store that data in a big database somewhere. I think people are getting a bit paranoid here.

ride a train, bus, or bicycle instead!

The point of this system is to provide a disincentive for unnecessary driving into Manhattan. If that means stripping Escalade-driving cagers of their privacy, so be it! I'm generally concerned about surveillance, but not that of bridge and tunnel barbarians. Since NYC has a good mass transit system, unnecessary can pretty much be defined as driving anything other than a delivery truck, bus, construction vehicle, etc. Suburban drivers need to start taking the train or move. I don't have much sympathy for owners of McMansions living in Sprawlville, NJ. Ride a train, bus, or bicycle, and stop giving all of us asthma!

On privacy and other matters

You can complain all you want about the privacy issues, but The Framers could never envision
a world where traffic snarled a major city. The trade off here is your privacy(marginally) for the
right to do something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place, namely driving in a city.

I am going to generalize and say that more than half of the people that drive into downtown areas like
Chicago, or Manhattan, or London, or Paris do so because they are vain and want people to know that they have
cars. Or they are to uppity to use public transportation. The simple fact that our world is too bloody crowded
with worthless automobiles driven by people who don't need them. I recently saw a guy argue with a delivery
truck driver over a minor scratch on the bumper of his Mercedes. Here is some news, if you park on a city street,
expect your car to bumped, dinged and scratched. Don't spend several times more than an average person's annual
salary on a motorcar and then complain about the minor fraction of your weekly income that it'll cost to get it
repainted because you are shallow, vain, SOB.

Congestion charges and their assocciated privacy issues ought to make people think twice about whether or not they
actually need to drive somewhere. Maybe if more people would be worried about whether or not they actually needed
to drive somewhere rather than if their driving habits are being monitored, we'd all be better off.

And by the way, you don't have any reasonable right to privacy in a public place. Most American guarantees of privacy
center on whether the government may arbitrarily delve into your private doings. Using a PUBLIC motorway is not PRIVATE
act. A private act is scratching your nose on your couch, not getting into a publicly registered vehicle, using a public
motorway and driving amongst the general public.

Ez Pass Swap

So get together a group of people (or an online social network) and arrange to swap EZ-Passes. Do it periodically, so that no one has any one pass for too long, and make sure that everyone pays whatever fees they've accumulated on the pass they have before they swap it.

Don't keep track of who had the pass in the past; just keep track of where they are now, and if the cops ask, you can reasonably say that you have no idea who was using that pass 6 months ago.

Canadians

I hope Canadians will get billed for their use of these streets since New York has so graciously assisted them by handing over the DMV database of NY residents so they can be billed if they happen to drive on the automatic tolled 407 highway in Toronto. The most galling aspect of this is that residents of some Canadian provinces with stronger privacy laws can freely drive on the highway without being billed.

What about through traffic?

I would hope that they are taking into account that to get from Long Island to New Jersey you pretty much have to travel through midtown/downtown Manhattan to do so (otherwise the only other options are the GWB and Verrazano Bridge, which are way too far out of the way). Unfortunately the highways that were supposed to connect the Manhattan Bridge to the Holland Tunnel, and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel to the Lincoln Tunnel, were never built. So, that forces traffic on Canal and 34th Streets, respectively. Would there be exemptions for those streets? It's not fair to have to pay an extra $8 if all you are going to do is take a 10-15 minute jaunt going from end to end, not intending on parking anywhere.

i live in times square

personally i think they should turn a random town in new jersey into a parking lot, and force people to take trains into the city. cars ruin midtown. i hate cars. all streets should become pedestrian thoroughfairs. make times square a permanent street fair. turn the taxi fleet into a bunch of pedicabs, scooters, and small european style microcars. make all truck deliveries during a certain hour of the night

and then i turn to slashdot, and i find a bunch of spin that frankly doesn't get the situation at all. a lot of the discussion here is about accepting a loss of freedom

loss of freedom?! you mean GAIN of freedom. the oppressive fascist presence here being CARS, not the government!

hello, i live here, i think i understand better than the average slashbot about what is going on with this plan. i don't see it as mourning a loss of freedom. i see it as celebrating a loss of CARS

let's put it this way: in the fight against what you perceive as an intrusive government and loss of privacy, try to understand what people on the ground are actually thinking about the situation, and pick the right fight. don't misinterpret the situation and come charging in horns ablaring about this issue or that issue that frankly, no one is actually concerned with and doesn't even apply

or rather, for the sake of argument, let's take the absurd position that the slashbots here are correct about this being an intrusive government issue and not a clogged traffic issue. ok, well then, now you understand that those who live in midtown manhattan welcome the devilish scheme of emperor palpatine to take away their freedoms under the guise of a bait and switch maneuver that the issue is something else entirely. fine: now try to understand what emperor palpatine is baiting us with, and use that issue as a starting point for your own words. the point being, it doesn't pay to march into a situation with the discussion already all figured out in your head without any input or attempt to persuade the people who are actually the targets of the plan in question

know your audience, speak to their concerns. or don't bother speraking at all. because they're not going to listen to you if you don't try to understand where they are coming from

How would this work?

There are a couple of issues with this proposal. The most basic one would be: how would it work?

All bridge & tunnel commuters would be exempt, because they already paid their toll to get in. How do you track that? How can they tell you crossed a toll bridge instead of the free bridge (there's on on the east side on 121st or so)? Is the mayor assuming that congestion isn't caused by the bridge and tunnel crowd?

Is NYC going to put a barrier across 86th street? How does that affect fire and emergency vehicles? How are the barriers going to go away during the day?

What if you have to drive across the 86th street line every day, for multiple deliveries? Is there a multiple-entry fee?

If you get below 86th before the cutoff time, then leave, can you go back in?

It's an interesting proposal, but I've never seen any data on the components of "congestion." If everybody is below 86th street when fee time starts, the fee won't do much to prevent congestion.

Can we give "1984" a rest?

People should not be allowed to reference 1984 (or say "Orwellian") unless they've actually read the thing [gutenberg.net.au]. It describes a totalitarian state that makes Stalin look like a libertarian. It's not just about a government that spies on its people (though only the upper classes). It's about people willfully changing their own memories of the past and a ruling party that claims to control reality. All of this is set in a world of permanent war and grinding poverty for almost all of humanity.

People are right to be concerned about the government spying on them. But most of the intrusions that people are up in arms about is a long way from "1984" territory. Being added to a database every time you drive into Manhattan does raise privacy concerns, but it's many orders of magnitude away from the nightmare Orwell described.

Warning: it's illegal to follow the above Gutenberg Australia link if you live in the U.S. or some other country that has effectively made copyrights permanent. That's a bad thing, but it's not "Orwellian" either.

New plates....

If they really want to do this, all they need to do is start making new plates with embedded RFID. They would not need to do anything with the RFID for a while... just distribute the new plates to existing drivers and make sure that all new drivers also get the new plates. The plates should be visually different from the old ones so that it is easy to tell the difference and let people know that past a certain date (maybe 5 years or so in the future) people who are still driving with the old plates will face fines. In a few years nearly everyone would have the new plates. They can then start using the RFID tags in the plates as they see fit.

Of course, this won't do anything to track the plates of people driving who are from out-of-state, but they can still track the raw numbers by measuring the number of cars that pass through major areas and comparing that to the number of cars with RFID plates. My money would be on that number being an insignificant minority in most areas except near state borders, due to the locality principle.

As a New Yorker...

Yep, they can track you: don't drive into Manhattan. It's that simple. That's the whole point of the proposed law, to keep people from driving into Manhattan.

You can walk in, bike in, skate in, helicopter in, take the bus or train (you paid for that MetroCard with cash, right?) and you won't be tracked. There isn't going to be a border checkpoint or anything like when you fly into one of our airports.

But if you choose to use a car, you forfeit this particular slice of your right to privacy.

I'm a paranoid guy, but I'm all for this. Get out and walk like the rest of us if you don't like it.

Most people carry cell phones

I'm sure most people who bitch at the notion of having their cars tracked while being in NYC will probably carry a cell phone. Thus, they can already be traced with greater accuracy than their cars as these will have their license plates scanned only every now and then.

License plate photos

Don't they already track people entering Manhattan through any of the bridges or tunnels because they are all terrorist targets? They already know you're in there.

Oh teh noes!

Now i might be held accountable for my actions!

Re:Notably absent?

wow... thats certainly quite a statement you made. I had to read it a couple times to actually understand what you were saying.

As for the missing comments, it is currently 1:30AM on US west coast, 4:30AM on US east coast, somewhere between 9:30AM and 11:30AM for most of Europe. I would expect comments from Japan as it is 5:30 PM there now, however this topic does not directly concern the citizens there (and I doubt slashdot comes in a Japanese version, but I could be wrong)

Re:Awesome!

how is it paranoia when they ARE actually tracking you?

land of the free indeed....

Re:Awesome!

Because it's just like driving through any other toll plaza anywhere else. I've not heard of any that don't use cameras to track cars or give away the fact that you crossed the control point with your ETC transponder. How this information is any different from going through other toll plazas or border crossings is beyond me. Moreover, why it matters is also a puzzling thought. So a computer knows you drove into Manhattan. It's not like it would have been a secret without these toll plazas.

If "they" want to watch you, they can do it. That ability is not new, nor is it going anywhere. Attempting to attribute some lingering fear to the fact that you're visible to others in public is paranoid.

Re:Awesome!

There's a difference to being in view in public, and having your whereabouts noted, and retrievable for all of eternity. I find it kinda disconcerting that I could one day be confronted by police with an exhaustive list of my movements for the last 10 years.

My uncle was visited by ASIO for suspected terrorism related stuff. We're Muslim, and it's a tradition donate food to poor people. He runs a butcher, and so sent meat to a Middle Eastern based charity organization. They then sent it to a regional distribution center which then distributed it to various community groups, one of which was apparently on an Interpol watch list of some description. Despite the layer upon layer of distance, my uncle's house was raised, all computer data was copied and he was questioned (bear in mind he sent a bunch of dead sheep, not a briefcase of hard currency or blueprints for nuclear related widget thingies).

He was presented with a list of every phone call he'd made in the last 10 years or so, and every call overseas he was required to explain. We're from South Africa, and are of Indian descent. Being Indian with a bloody huge families we have, we have relatives all over the place, and so we make heaps of overseas phone calls. Eventually, they decided my uncle was harmless, and left him alone. Nonetheless, ever since then I've been gearing up to move to a country that is not in the Western Axis, as I am increasingly getting the feeling that we as Muslims just aren't welcome. Plus, I don't like the idea that someone, somewhere has access to all of my movements.

Oh, and if you're going to give me the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" line, please don't, I've heard it many times before and it sounds dumber each time I hear it.

Re:Awesome!

Classic, first of all you denounce the entire UK as a bunch of right wing Sun reading racists and then in the very next sentance you moan about people making sweeping statements about sections of society. A case of double standards here perhaps ?

The majority of people in the UK are not right wing Sun reading racists, although some of us are and some of the more religiously inspired members of the Muslim community are really not interested much in integration.

If you actually want to do something to help both the right wing racists and the isolationist muslims it's best to see people as they actually are rather than relying on broad caricatures.

read the post

(some cops don't understand this)

This is a longstanding right that has been reaffirmed a number of times by the Supreme Court. In fact, the ACLU at one point had a card that the group encouraged photographers to carry entitled "The Photographer's Bust Card" - outlining legal rights of photographers. There's more info at nyc.photobloggers.org [photobloggers.org] and a PDF based on the card [krages.com] developed by an attorney that is pretty informative.

papers, please

Oh, and if you're going to give me the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" line, please don't, I've heard it many times before and it sounds dumber each time I hear it.

I would love it if someone said that to me.

If someone did say that to me - a man, in this example - then I could ask him what his wife's favourite sexual position is, or which co-worker he would turn gay for, or which one person he would kill if he could get away with it.

I don't really care what his answers would be, but that's not why I'd want to ask. I would want that person to decide for himself whether he would tell me or not. If he doesn't feel comfortable telling me, or feels offended that I'd ask, he won't answer, even if he can. That's exactly the point.

If you've got nothing to hide, you really do have nothing to fear. This is true, for as far as it goes, and I'm sure the people who say it believe it. The catch is simple: everyone has something to hide, and not everyone realises it.

Re:Awesome!

But Christianity and Judaism are okay, despite following the same "God"? I say we get rid of them all, since they've been making countries less free since their conception!

Re:Awesome!

"But Christianity and Judaism are okay, despite following the same "God"? I say we get rid of them all, since they've been making countries less free since their conception!

In the real world, Christianity and Judaism have been usefully weakened so they don't pose as much of a threat. (I'm an atheist so I like none of them.) The idea that we should strive equally for some impossible ideal outcome as a matter of principle does not make intelligent social policy.

In which society, right now, would your rather live given the choice between predominately Christian, Jewish, or Muslim countries?

Re:Awesome!

"I find it kinda disconcerting that I could one day be confronted by police with an exhaustive list of my movements for the last 10 years." I could care less. It would establish my innocence. I don't find it intimidating at all.

I think you've missing the bigger picture here. In a free society information about citizens isn't arbitrarily stockpiled for potential criminal investigations. In a free society, information for a criminal investigation is gathered once a citizen is officially suspected of a crime. The purpose of a free society's law enforcement is not to preemptively scour the populous with microphones and video cameras for all lawbreakers and dissenters, as you would see in a totalitarian state, but to respond to visible breaches of the law. In America, we're headed down a slippery slope - letting our congress sign away our traditional rights and liberties, because we're afraid that the "terrorists" are going to get us in our sleep. Eventually, we'll have no liberties to be abused by the "terrorists", and we'll simply trudge through servile lives anxiously avoiding any "suspicious" activity or thought deemed dangerous (read: independent) by the government, lest we be whisked away in a black van paid for by our own tax dollars to an offshore unsupervised prison we opted not to care about when it was erected, to be interrogated through torture we legalized to get information from terrorists, out of sight and mind of anyone that might care but now can't do anything without being locked in the cells next to us. Maybe that's a paranoid rant, but that's how I imagine a life lived in "safety" in exchange for liberty.

Re:Awesome!

I'm not sure exactly how toll plazas in the states work, with EZPass and other things, but there was a (slightly famous) case in South Africa where a toll plaza helped solve a murder.

This happened at least ten years ago, so I'm not sure if video surveillance was the norm back then. I know now that all toll plazas here have cameras that record licence plates, but payment is still entirely manual - you pay with cash or credit card... the most automated means of passing is by swiping your credit card yourself in an express lane. But anyways. Because some toll plazas are on roads that are used daily for people to get to work and back, some of them offer concession cards to people living in the area to get a discounted rate. So, you pull up at the toll booth, hand in your concession card, the attendant swipes it, it registers the discounted fare, you pay, get your card back, and leave. What not many people knew, was that since you had to apply for these cards, and the cards were issued on a per vehicle basis (the card has to match the license plate to prevent fraud), the card has the vehicle details and registered owner details stored in its magnetic strip, and when the operator swipes your card to register your concession, the card details are logged in a database somewhere.

What happened was, this guy decided to murder his employee to cash in on a life policy that he had taken out in the employees name. He took his family 3-4 hours away to a casino resort for the weekend, and asked the employee to check on the house while he was away. While the family was asleep, he got in his car, drove back home, killed the employee and made it look like a break-in, drove back to the resort, and appeared very surprised and upset at the break-in and murder in his house when he returned. Although it was very suspicious and lots of evidence pointed to him, he did have the alibi of having checked in in person at the resort for the weekend. Except that he used his concession card when he drove through the toll each time, which recorded his car details and the date and time that he passed through.

These days, the discount you get for having a concession card is the equivalent of less than US$1... back then it would have been closer to around 10-20c US each trip. So, if he hadn't tried to save himself around 50c and paid the full toll price, he could have gotten away with murder.

I'm not trying to justify data recording at toll booths nor put them down. Just thought it was an interesting, somewhat related story.

Re:who wants to go there?

Manhattan is full of niggers

Clearly you meant "the working class", and you're correct. Manhattan is full of working class individuals who clearly have an interest past that of which is providing the employment. If you meant otherwise, then your conflation of racial division with division in class and/or earning potential is the point of discussion, at which point any rational individual would have to disagree with your assessment.

Re:Awesome!

You'd have made a great Hitler Youth member.

BTW, New Yorkers, when they tell you that the London Congestion Chrage cut traffic by 20% they are LYING. The scheme was launched at the beginning of a school holiday when the traffic volume drops by over 15% anyway. They also promised that the £5 charge would NOT be raised - yet raised the charge to £8 when it became clear that the CC wasn't making enough money. The proposal is now to have a "congestion" charge based on the CO2 emissions of your car, with the top rate (225g/km - basically any petrol engine over about 2.5litres capacity) being £25 per day. That's right FIFTY DOLLARS PER DAY. Oh, and it goes without saying that the CC zone has also been extended in area, with more extensions promised, and that the ANPR camera network that drives the system is now used by the police to track EVERYONE. What do they do with the data? Who knows. Can you see the data relating to you? Of course not.

1984 it is not. Orwell never dreamed of ANPR, GPS and ubiquitous supercomputing.

You have been warned.

Long since past that point

Systems like this just empower society to cut out the cancer and get on with more productive things like work, socialising, and being able to relax in a home that isn't stripped bare, burned down, or riddled with bullet holes.

However the question is, is this system worth the loss of privacy? (not to mention the cost of actually running the thing!) Every thing you do to deter crime knocks some people out of the candidate list for committing that crime. If a crime is immoral (murder, rape, arson, stealing, ect) that knocks a good 90+% of your average educated population off the list. That combined with fear of being caught, punishment, being ostracized from everyone that you know removes another large chunk of the population from that list.

What remains on that list is the portion that doesn't care about any of that, they will stop at nothing to do whatever crime they intend to commit. Sorry to say, but no matter what you do, crime will always happen. (an example of this is crime during Soviet Russia, if the police even thought you might be responsible for a crime you were either killed or sent go a gulag, yet it still occurred)

I doubt that in any major city since the 1800's have people actually been seriously afraid of having their homes stripped bare, burned down, or riddled with bullet holes (there are exceptions however, gang warfare and race warfare, neither of which would be impacted by this system in the slightest)

Re:Notably absent?

I find myself wondering why there isn't a "WTF?" moderator tag...

Re:What's the real reason?

Neither, it's to do with Sarbanes-Oxley.

Security theater doesn't make anyone safer

Systems like this just empower society to cut out the cancer and get on with more productive things like work, socialising, and being able to relax in a home that isn't stripped bare, burned down, or riddled with bullet holes.

So let's see what I've gained here. Able to get on with work? Nope, I could already do that. Socialising? Never had problems with that either. Able to relax at home? No, I could do that before too. And you can probably guess what three things my home isn't. So what else is there to gain? Just having the trains run on time?

Remind me why I should give up something to get what I've already got.

Re:Manhattan is just for the rich who cares

I grew up in NYC. Used to be so much more interesting. Now it's just money. The seedy parts of the city had character.

Mod parent up. And give Rudi "Disneyland" Guiliani a hard kick in the butt when you see him for making NYC what it is. I still love the town, and there are still interesting parts but some neighborhoods have lost their charm.

Ah, just wait till the economy isn't so great again...

-b.