Crowdsourcing Big Brother In Lancaster, PA 440
sehlat writes "From the Los Angeles Times comes word that in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 165 public surveillance cameras are being set up to be monitored by a 'non profit coalition' of volunteers. The usual suspects, including 'the innocent have nothing to fear' are being trotted out to justify this, and the following quote at the end of the article deserves mention: 'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
How Is This Crowdsourcing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crowdsourcing Big Brother in Lancaster, PA
Uh, I read the article and it sounds like 10 self-appointed people running the show with 12 volunteers. How in the hell is that crowdsourcing?
... one operating outside my elected official's jurisdiction would be a true horror show.
Don't even get me started on a who will watch the watchmen rant. Such a monitoring activity operating at all upsets me
Re: (Score:2)
Hm, sounds a lot like Perverted Justice [wikipedia.org], in the sense of a group of non-law enforcement people who band together. Sort of a form of group vigilantism.
Crowd-sourcing would be putting up live feeds to the web and letting anyone watch who wants to.
Group Vigilanteism? (Score:2)
In the old days, you could get tarred and feathered for that!
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of a form of group vigilantism.
It's not vigilantism if it is state sponsored.
'the innocent have nothing to fear' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:'the innocent have nothing to fear' (Score:5, Funny)
The innocent don't have anything to fear. What are you hiding?
No then, where can I sign up to monitor Jessica Alba's shower to make sure she's not abusing little kids there?
Whoda Thunk It (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Jack Bauer Likes Surveillance Cameras." Well, duh.
Yeah, I don't think the cameras have anything to do with him not being robbed. The criminals just found out the place was run by Jack Bauer and they all collectively pissed their pants and ran away screaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, Jack Bauer? (Score:3, Insightful)
"'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'""
Sheize: Ugly things are happening across the earth.
Re:Really, Jack Bauer? (Score:4, Funny)
I bet his store is open 24-hours-a-day.
Re:Really, Jack Bauer? (Score:5, Funny)
4 A.M. to 5 A.M.
4:01 Jack walks around the store 3 times, idly touching various merchandise along the way.
4:02 Homeless man wanders in and goes into the bathroom
4:07 Teenager with long hair reeking of patchouli and weed buys entire stock of Twinkies and 3 bags of Cheetos
4:25 Jack idly flips through latest issue of Penthouse
4:28 Jack kicks homeless man out of the bathroom, sprays Lysol and reminds himself to get the new kid to clean up that mess when he gets in.
4:32 Jack dozes off behind the register
4:43 Door chime wakes Jack, man in dirty flannel and backwards baseball cap buys a pack of Marlboro Lights.
4:52 Jack holds lottery tickets up to light looking for a winner
4:59 Jack dozes off again.
Riveting stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
"Jack Bauer then turned around and resumed torture on a suspected terrorist by electrocuting him with wires from a broken lamp."
Following the UK's lead... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure it's not hard to find volunteers for this sort of thing. Anyone who is nosy/power-seeking/voyeuristic would enjoy watching these cams without pay.
How much more freedom do we have to lose before we do something about it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as people have enough to eat and are sufficiently entertained they will willingly relinquish freedom. Fast food restaurants and television are killing this country.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cameras don't take away your freedom; they don't change your rights. They only make it more likely that you will be caught if you are doing something you don't have the right or freedom to do.
Re:Following the UK's lead... (Score:4, Interesting)
"you don't have the right or freedom to do."
Histories greatest struggles have been about men doing things that their societies thought they didn't have the right and freedom to do. See the founding of america, women getting the vote, and on and on.
People don't see eye to eye on principles (see: copyright infringement vs theft), and the idea that there is one superior model to all others is a bunch of BS.
Principles are guidelines only and are subject to change as the environment, people and culture change around them. For instance, many of us can't imagine owning slaves or being able to legally mistreat slaves today as a *right* and a principle of *freedom for the owner*.
What is a right and what is a freedom is determined by people themselves.
Ends and means (Score:4, Funny)
'But Jack Bauer, owner of the city's largest beer and soft drink distributor, calls the network "a great thing." His store hasn't been robbed, he said, since four cameras went up nearby. "There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
The ends don't always justify the means, Jack. How many people have to be tortured to death during an interrogation before you realise that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you rather have to blame the people who watch this, and are not disgusted by it.
I still haven't seen even one minute of 24. Because of the mindset that is presented in there.
Neighborhood watch? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what's the difference between this and a neighborhood watch? No, seriously, I'm asking.
Re:Neighborhood watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neighborhood Watch is actually the neighborhood. Cameras being recorded by who knows, for who knows...
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer is a non-sequitor. How is this different than neighborhood watch? All the camera does is allow people to watch without being right there. How does this differ in any significant way from Old Mrs. Simpson sitting at her window watching?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I cant connect Mrs Simpson optic nerves to youTube, thats a big difference...
Seriously, if there was no difference, people would not bother with this project... So there must be a difference, whether its a positive or negative difference is what the discussion is about...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
-1, Troll
Heh, toldja. Opinionated moderator is opinionated. It'd be too much to expect an anonymous moderator to be smart enough to understand the purpose of the moderation system. If you disagree with a post, you post a response detailing why you disagree. If you actually feel that the post is a troll (intentionally written to incite retaliation and not further meaningful discussion or provide useful information), then you mod it as troll. But those that are to stupid to formulate a proper rebuttal must sadly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you can't see who, if anyone, is watching. You glance back & forth, then pick your nose, and you never know 10 people were watching & recording.
That said, this stuff is inevitable. Cameras and high speed networking become ubiquitous and cheap, and privacy anywhere that can be seen by a public space is gone.
Get used to it or it'll drive you nuts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No different (Score:2)
Re:No different (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No different (Score:5, Insightful)
How does being watched in public spaces restrict your freedom?
Because you are not free to do things that are not illegal, but may be frowned upon by your community.
Meeting your mistress. Attending AA. Organizing a protest rally. Attending a meeting of an unpopular political group. Going to a fertility clinic. Going to an abortion clinic. Not resting on the sabbath. Going to the wrong church. Going on a date with a woman of a different race. Going to a gay bar. Going to a strip club. Purchasing alcohol. Looking at a child or married woman for too long or in the wrong way. Checking the wrong book out of the library. Stopping to offer condolences to the last victim of wholesale surveillance.
See "chilling effect."
Re:No different (Score:4, Informative)
The embarrassment factor isn't a problem. The blackmail factor is a problem. "Oh, councilman Smith. How are you planning on voting on Proposition 32? Really, that's too bad. I'd hate to see this tape of you and your mistress going into a room of that sleazy motel get out into the public view. ... So you've changed your mind on your vote? Wonderful news."
If there were clear rules on when and why people could get access to the camera footage (only after a crime has been committed, only the footage that covers the area where the evidence indicates the crime took place, and only for official police use in investigation of a specific crime) then that would be one thing. Taping all public property 24/7/365 with little to no control over who can access the footage ... that worries me. Power corrupts, and absolute (surveillance) power corrupts absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
the biggest loss of freedom with these cameras comes from your pocket. The camers and associated infrastructure costs a lot of money.
The benefits gained from these cameras is essentially minimal or non-existent. Cameras do not prevent crime nor do they do a good job at catching people after the act. London's crime rate hasn't gone down with the many cameras they have.
It is a complete waste of the publics money. If Jack Bauer is so worried about his private property then he should pay for his own cameras and
Re: (Score:2)
> How is this different from being watched inside the store anyhow?
Because you can choose not to shop there. At least philosophically it's big difference.
Dangerous Amish Gangs? (Score:3, Funny)
You've got to keep an eye on those Amish. You don't want all your quilts and "As Seen on TV" fireplaces to go missing now, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
The innards are Chinese - the wooden mantles are made at a couple different Amish and /or Mennonite places (in Ohio, not PA, I believe) - different Amish sects have varying views on the uses of technology - some are especially lenient with tool use.
Re: (Score:2)
Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is the surveillance done only by "a private nonprofit group?" In a truly transparent society [wikipedia.org] such an array of cameras would be accessible by anyone, not just a select few.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a transparent society, you could photograph the Brooklyn Bridge without having a worry somewhere in the corner of your mind. You could photograph a police office arresting someone with
big effing deal (Score:3, Insightful)
it's great, because parents can let their kids go to the park without the need to be supervised (assuming the kids live in a nearby neighborhood). i often rode my bike down the street to a neighborhood park when i was a kid, and i'm sure my parents would have appreciated the cameras at the time.
they ought to make the feeds publicly available, so parents could watch what is going on, as well as allow for residents to watch parades, public gatherings and other things from home.
people who get all pissy about this stuff make no sense to me.
Re:big effing deal (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
Actually, I have to agree, but I also think that the camera feeds should be made public. Absolutely public. Publish them on the Web, local cable, anywhere people can get to them. The more people watching, the better.
Re:big effing deal (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder about that. I really do.
Why is it that photographs and videos taken of models need copyright consent forms in order to be used, but my images can be snapped by thousands of cameras and copied about servers until doomsday without me even being informed?
Why is it that if I followed someone around every day, taking pictures and recording their movements, I would be convicted or stalking or have a restraining order put on me, yet it's OK for any old group to set up a nationwide system of cameras to track and record forever the movements of every single person in the state?
Why is it OK for them to record me, but it's not OK for me to see the footage?
I think Jack Bauer's comment really says it all. This system is not about protecting people. It's about intimidating them. It's about instilling fear. It's about the watchers gaining power over the watched. That is the systems primary purpose.
Who do you think will be manning these cameras? College students and libertarians? Not a chance. Think prudes and gossips, closet authoritarians and morality police, the perpetually offended and those who long for a society in which people know their place. And that place will be certainly be on camera instead of behind it.
Surveillance systems like this are getting implemented, everywhere, and their effect on society will be colossal. I believe it will be uniformly negative. We will move from the freedom and anonymity of urban society right back into the parochial, scrutinized and regulated mores of rural society. It's coming. In many ways, it's already here. You're only hope is that such systems have legal restrictions placed on them before they run completely rampant.
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point: if they're filming public space, it's not really "Big Brother."
But since when do strategically placed cameras replace "supervision"? How are you, as a parent, going to prevent Johnny from doing something potentially dangerous if you're three blocks away? How are you going to provide first aid when the kid gets hurt, or keep Bad Guys from running off with him? The surveillance might be useful "after the fact," but it's in no way a substitute for hands-on parenting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:big effing deal (Score:4, Insightful)
it's a public place where anyone can see what is going on at any point in time. there is no infringement of privacy if this is a public area, and with cameras being visible, there is no deception in the intent.
tell that to all the police who arrest people photographing them...
Lived here for years... (Score:5, Informative)
So strange to see my hometown on the front page of Slashdot...
The Los Angeles Times article states:
"Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy."
I've lived in Lancaster for years and haven't heard a thing about this. I just searched our local newspaper with no results.
There's no public debate because as far as I know this is the first time it's even been mentioned. I saw the cameras go up, now I know the story behind them... thanks to a random mention on a tech news site linking an article from a newspaper on the other side of the country.
I LIVE in Lancaster and I didn't know! (Score:5, Informative)
I LIVE in Lancaster, and I had no idea! They said 'the people didn't object' hell I didn't even KNOW! This is such a horribly bad idea... I thought Britain was Orwellian with their surveillance camera system, but to have put this in place and for most ppl to not even KNOW about it.. that by definition is a police state! Outsourcing it to some agency is monumentally wrong. I think I need a pocket jammer system just to go to the public library...
Re: (Score:2)
A town gone "funny' (Score:5, Insightful)
A chilling quote:
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."
I am not sure "funny" is the term I would use to describe the change.
But then again, I for one welcome our new...actually I don't, screw them and the fear they rode in on!
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a crime? (Score:2, Insightful)
If no one is around to see me running around naked, is it a crime? Because the camera is there watching, it could be. What if I pee on a bush? If no one is looking it wouldn't be a crime, but with camera's watching everywhere... And what about the children? What about those toddlers running around or getting their diapers changed in public, would those now be child porn? If it is child porn, who is responsible?
Living in an open society with 0 privacy would be ok IF the only things the camera's would b
Nobody expects . . . "The Lancaster Inquisition!" (Score:3, Funny)
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," he said.'"
"Fear . . . and surprise!"
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy, Yes. Anonymity, NO. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for this if... (Score:3, Interesting)
I all for public surveillance only if we, the private citizen also get to have cameras on those who are doing the surveillance. Only then is it completely fair. Public surveillance is inevitable, just like we see in the UK...we might as well get used to it and make sure that the playing field is equal, that the government doesn't have a leg up over its citizens.
This isn't so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
If it really works, people hate it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The story of Adam's Block [justin.tv] is instructive. Someone set up two good high-resolution cameras looking out at a high-crime area in San Francisco's Tenderloin, and put them on the Web. Viewers could comment in real time, and log interesting events for later interest.
The drug dealers were angry. There were death threats. The camera owner finally had to take the cameras down and move. [sfgate.com]
Smile, You're on Amish Camera! (Score:2)
I work in Lancaster (off New Holland Ave) - I believe one of the cameras is mounted on my building - the lot it overlooks has random car window smash & grabs every couple months, due to the close proximity of a high school. There has been no discussion about the monitoring system at all as far as I can tell.
An example of cameras in our town (Score:5, Interesting)
The ratepayers fell into line very quickly and funding was given, helped by the robbery of an employee leaving working at just 6:30pm.
The first camera was installed at an intersection well away from The Square, not in it. The next camera was similar. More were installed. Then there was a headline, drunk drivers were being caught. It turns out they were turning the cameras to the streets surrounding The Square and watching up to 400m down side streets for patrons to leave taverns and pubs and directing police cars if "staggering patrons got into a car". When asked 6 months later why crime wasn't being reduced in the square the council said "oh, the ones there do not work, they havent been wired up."
A real snow job
The innocent have nothing to fear (Score:2)
That is... if it breaks the news. Consider the journalist with this story contacting the major for a comment, and getting this message: "Publish this and we will publish the video of your wife going to the abortion clinic."
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear,"??? (Score:2)
"There's nothing wrong with instilling fear," -- Jack Bauer
O rly? Allright then:* I will come over, catch you, and rape you for one week straight. Including your whole family. Then I will burn down your company. With you. Veeery slowly. And piss on your grave. Then I'll start the really sick things.
Do you really think there is nothing wrong with saying that?
REALLY? ^^
* This paragraph is there for demonstration purposes, and does not reflect my personality in any way. I don't think I have to mention this. But I know some /.ers are really *weird*. :)
The case for cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in a chip shop in Manchester England late one night when some young thugs tried to start a fight because a fella objected to them jumping the line. They said quite openly that the only reason they didn't beat the head off him was because there was a camera pointing at them. This was in the same year that some poor night clubber was beaten to death in an early morning disturbance over a bag of chips (French fries). Manchester has a vibrant nightlife, but it is heavily policed and I was always grateful for that. Do not underestimate the power of drunken people in large groups. Without some innovative approaches to law and order, it would be impossible to have late night bus services and the thriving club scene.
It's all well and good living in leafy suburbs where crime is almost unheard of and declaring that survailance is an unnecessary restriction on freedoms, but some people live in areas where this kind of thing is needed.
In her seminal book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs described how the design of city streets can influence crime levels. The presence of other people on a street, or the perceived presence of people who might be looking out from their windows, is enough to keep crime at lower levels in residential areas. Deserted areas such as back alleys, sprawling parking lagoons, or empty retail or office parks late at night, are all much more dangerous. The design of many American cities in recent decades has seen some short-sighted car-centric planning methods that has led to an increase in the number of these dangerously barren areas. In an ideal world, these single-use zoned areas would be retrofitted into mixed-use zones where there is a permanent human presence. In the real world, cameras are the next best thing.
Older cities like San Francisco have much of their area populated at all hours of the day and night because they were built before the days of single-use zoning. Is the presence of people on the street a curtailment of civil liberties? What's the difference between a camera recording an incident and an eyewitness who can later give testimony? The only difference that I can see is that the camera can't be intimidated and doesn't need to be put into a witness protection program.
frikin lasers (Score:3, Insightful)
Husbands with mistresses (Score:3, Insightful)
Morales says he refuses all other requests. "The divorce lawyer who wants video of a husband coming out of a bar with his mistress, we won't do it," he said.
It seems that the guy doesn't know that a divorce lawyer can subpoena the video.
Any judge in any legal proceeding who decides that it's in the interests of justice to have the video can issue a subpoena for it.
That system doesn't just cover bars. It covers every public street. Even people who are single might not want a video record of everybody who walked through their door and spent the night with them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is this "we" you talk about?
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
I don't know about the rest of Slashdot (I haven't really seen that rhetoric but if you do, I won't argue) but I am certainly against all meddling. I hate the fact that the state that I live in has seat belt laws now, Blue Laws, and the fact that some intersections still have cameras on the street lights (red light cameras were declared unconstitutional in Minneapolis).
If a private business wants to have cameras which only view their own private/personal property, that's fine. As soon as it's opened up to a group outside of that private business or they are viewing public property then it's not acceptable. No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't believe in the whole "if you can be seen by a private citizen then it's the same thing." Once that citizen can play back an exact copy of the event in his/her head at a later time without any chance of fault, then I'll consider it the same damn thing.
Let me see if I've got this right.
You have a problem with this, as opposed to a private citizen witness, because you want to preserve the right to accuse a private citizen witness who is telling the truth of lying? You want to preserve the option of lying about someone else who's telling the truth?
If I'm getting you correctly, I think I understand your point of view, but do not personally respect it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a problem with this, as opposed to a private citizen witness, because you want to preserve the right to accuse a private citizen witness who is telling the truth of lying? You want to preserve the option of lying about someone else who's telling the truth?
In a court of law an eyewitness account can be filtered through time and personal judgment. I never said that the witness was lying, just that they aren't as useful as a video account of the happenings--especially when we're looking at 1+ year lat
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
So basically, you want to be able to get away with a crime you would be successfully prosecuted for if there was camera evidence. No sympathy.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws are not there to include that which is acceptable, but to exclude that which is unacceptable.
About those cameras... (Score:3, Interesting)
Many areas use cameras sitting on top of the red lights to activate them. They don't record, they simply detect motion. Those of us who ride motorcycles are rather appreciative of that as induction loop sensors (those cuts you sometimes see in the road at intersections) usually don't work for us.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as the "no expectation of privacy in a public place" argument, I would say it is now, "If a passerby with a cell phone could have recorded the same video, then it is the same thing." One should never assume their actions outside of their own home are private. The addition of a few cameras doesn't change that principle. That being said, the video from public cameras should be available for everyone's use; they should not be able to suppress video of official wrongdoing while using other video to prosecute less powerful civilians. I also believe all interactions between police and civilians should be recorded, because an unbiased recording of events protects the police and the civilians equally. Granted, police would quickly learn how to do things "off camera", but if both the police and the suspect are recording, then it becomes much more difficult to hide wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah we are also one of the few states apparently that are a single party state for recording. Only 1 person in a conversation need be aware of the recording of a phone call for it to be admissible. This also means that if you are the one recording you do not have to tell the person at the other end (as you are the single party) apparently.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
Rhetoric aside, you should have a seat belt cutter in your car in case the seat belt suddenly becomes an irremovable hazard. In any case the seat belt may help, it may also become life threatening.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're against seat belt laws? I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else"
"I would wear a seat belt anyway, so why have a law"
Aside from protecting the driver from himself...
If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket). I am glad my parents instilled in me the habit of buckling up...
Except for the fact that people continue to not wear seatbelts, no matter what the law says. Laws don't make people do something. If people are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt, then why should the rest of society care? Yeah you might need therapy if you hit someone without a seat belt and they splatter all over the road, but you're going to feel bad anyway even if you hit someone and it wasn't even your fault.
Re: (Score:2)
> If people are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt, then why should the rest of society care?
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one. Or whoever has to clean up after an accident.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one. Or whoever has to clean up after an accident.
No probably to it...you can blame insurance companies and lawyers who sue everyone in sight (note I'm not referring to all lawyers). Seat belt laws are about financial risk management nothing more. Just one more example of why the state must protect us from ourselves. Our founding fathers really should have writting "Life, LIberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as long as the money of the powerful isn't affected.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
You can probably blame insurance companies for this one.
Actually, blame the government and car companies for it. It's actually kind of a fun story.
Way back when, the government mandated that the auto industry come up with some kind of "passive restraint system" for cars. Well, of course, the auto industry didn't like this. So the deal was made--the auto industry wouldn't have to have some kind of "passive restraint system" if the states that made up 80% passed a mandatory seatbelt law.
With that, auto industry lobbyists went to work getting all the states to pass a mandatory seatbelt law. The problem is that it actually was a pretty tough sell. The solution was to make it a "secondary enforcement"--the police cannot stop you for not wearing a seatbelt. But if they stop you for something else and notice you don't have a seatbelt on, they can give you a fine. There's usually no insurance issues, points on your license, or anything like that. So as long as you were a "good driver" (and remember that more than 50% of all Americans consider themselves 'above average drivers'), you didn't have much to fear. But it still fit the criteria of "seat belt law", so it counted.
Now the courts eventually threw out this "deal" and said the auto industry had to provide a passive restraint system anyway. Of course, the laws were already passed and it's tough to get a law repealed--especially a law that "saves lives."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for the fact that people continue to not wear seatbelts, no matter what the law says. Laws don't make people do something. If people are dumb enough to drive without a seat belt, then why should the rest of society care? Yeah you might need therapy if you hit someone without a seat belt and they splatter all over the road, but you're going to feel bad anyway even if you hit someone and it wasn't even your fault.
Why should I care ? Because I'll have to pay increased insurance rates (auto AND health) because these people will be severely injured and need years of therapy.
It isn't right that I, by wearing my seatbelt minimized my injuries, am forced to pay for someone who 'couldn't be bothered' to obey the law.
If the laws were such that if you are injured because you didn't wear your seatbelt, your insurance (and the other person's insurance) don't have to pay anything, I'd be FINE with that.
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I didn't have to pay for idiots who talk on cellphones while driving, or for stupid people to have kids. I wish I didn't have to pay for health freaks living to 100 using up all that money on health care. If they had any sense and smoked, drank, and ate cheeseburgers they would die at 65 and save us 10 million dollars.
Do you want to be unapproved for health care or reproduction privileges because your DNA is more costly to maintain than some arbitrary level society sets? Do you want to live in a society where doctors run through extensive checklists, wasting precious time, to see if you did anything unapproved to disqualify you from receiving treatment for your heart attack, car crash, or bullet hole?
Plus, you are wrong. People who die in auto accidents stop being a drain. Those idiots that survive them with their seat belts cost big bucks to patch up and put back into active duty, only to tie up precious resources the next time something happens.
Legistlation of Micromanagement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wear my seat belt and require them to be used by others when I drive. I'm not against that but I am against the police having the authority to pull someone over for the offense (it hasn't come to that in MN yet but it will eventually). I can't always tell when my wife has her belt on in the car when I'm sitting next to her (it blends in with the color of clothing she wears most frequently), how the fuck is the cop going to do so from afar?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can probably spew a little bit of 'anti seat belt rhetoric' -
"I should have the right to risk my own life, it doesn't affect anyone else" ..
If I hit you with my car, and you fly out of your windshield and splatter somewhere- I'll feel pretty bad. Maybe i'll go into therapy for it. If it was my fault, I'd probably feel worse. I really don't need that on my conscience...
Protecting you from something unpleasant, possibly unpleasant enough to go into therapy, is not a good reason for a law. Hate to sound callous, but those are your issues for you to deal with.
I don't want to sound all 'think of the children' but these laws also motivate ignorant/stupid parents to force their children to 'buckle up' for safety (or fear of getting another ticket).
I don't want to sound like I'm saying "You sound like you're saying that because you are" but that would be hypocritical. Overreaching laws cannot make for responsible parenting.
Anyway you missed the most important reason for getting rid of seatbelt laws: there's no reason TO do it. Not wearing a seatbelt is
Re:Ahhh, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
corruption.
shortening the length of the yellow light leads to more tickets and increased revenues for the camera company and for the locality.
if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.
however, the stories I've read/heard on the subject all seem to involve these cameras being installed and the yellow duration being shortened. And the camera's end up generating a good amount of money, but the number of accidents stays about the same.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents caused by people driving through red lights, then installing the cameras and lengthening the yellow would be the optimal solution.
No, if the goal is to reduce the number of accidents, the optimal solution would be to install the cameras, leave the yellow lights at the correct time, and install countdown timers before the light changes to yellow so drivers have a good idea of how much time they have to get through the intersection.
That's how it's done in my area (in fact, some intersections have the countdown timer with no camera) and it works pretty well.
You've bought the rhetoric. (Score:5, Informative)
Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Because yellow lights may be shorter in duration to increase revenue?
Because government and for-profit private companies collude and share the income from what is normally law enforcement (government-only) fines?
Re:You've bought the rhetoric. (Score:4, Informative)
1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
In MD at least, the ticket does go to the car owner, and not the driver. The red light camera ticket I saw had only a picture of the rear of the car, and you could in no way identify the driver.
4. Because rear-end collisions increase at intersections with red-light cameras?
Citation needed.
this page has 5 studies that conclude that accidents increase
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ [motorists.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about where you live, but this is not the case in Atlanta. My beloved Volvo recently died so my stepfather was nice enough to loan me his car for a week while I shopped around. I apparently ran* a red light in his car, and the ticket ended up going to him. The picture was only of the car, from the rear, without any way
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
Hmm, don't find that I need protection from myself...
Re: (Score:2)
We love the nanny state when it protects us from ourselves, but we don't want them watching.
No, actually, I'm pretty sure I don't love the nanny state no matter what it does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Instilling fear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Historically, the two have had high correlation. See Persians, Romans, British, American, etc.
While they weren't perfectly free nations, they each had quite progressive legal systems that provided relatively good degrees of equality and freedom to its citizens compared to other major powers of the world at the time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hell yeah. I would watch that. Bound to be more entertaining than "American Idol."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I first saw this I thought: "Great! A bunch of people are getting together to put the kibosh on this insane Big Brother scheme."
How wrong I was.
Instead we have a group of volunteers with dubious accountability and no public access to the video feeds.
I thought exactly the same thing, the wording was weird at first read.