TheJoker tramples on civil rights
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
Someone will develop a device that emits a frequency of light (or multiple) in the non-visible portion of the spectrum that will scramble ccd's.
You will find that it will be illegal already as like NZ I'd bet that you already have laws on the books that make obscuring Vehicle license plates by any means a felony.
Interesting Constitutional issue. Per current doctrine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a cop being in a public place (watching or following someone/something specific, even) or taking a picture of a public place without any required level of suspicion, and all a camera does is make a cop more efficient.
However, I think that if there were enough police officers to follow every citizen around all the time, we'd feel differently about this and start putting up a requirement for a cop to establish some threshold for simple observation.
This seems a bit silly, as cops are people, too, no matter what Silver says, and they should have the same freedoms in public as other citizens. And thankfully we'll never have that many police...but technology could easily fill that gap.
I actually wrote a paper on camera surveillance during the application process for one of my jobs during their written exam...my solution, devised in a half hour and with no law enforcement training, was that cameras could be used to monitor public places, but that the information on the camera would require judicial review to access. Proving probable cause seems like a fairly high standard, but if you figure "there was a robbery in Tiburon last night in this place...the perpetrators are likley on the following video cameras X, Y, and Z" it wouldn't be that hard of an affidavit to write whenever there's a crime.
Of course, just recording vehicles arriving and departing seems less useful, and you'd need a lower standard of proof than PC for the footage to be useful for the cops, maybe just reasonable suspicion. ("This guy says he wasn't in town the night of the robbery. Let's run the past week's logs and find out if he was there.")
In the end, though, the purpose for such safeguards is to prevent an effective law-enforcement tool from become a potential tool of someone in power with other motives. I always try to apply the WWNDWT rule when theorizing about governmental powers. (What Would Nixon Do With This)
However, I think that if there were enough police officers to follow every citizen around all the time, we'd feel differently about this and start putting up a requirement for a cop to establish some threshold for simple observation.
This seems a bit silly, as cops are people, too, no matter what Silver says, and they should have the same freedoms in public as other citizens. And thankfully we'll never have that many police...but technology could easily fill that gap.
I actually wrote a paper on camera surveillance during the application process for one of my jobs during their written exam...my solution, devised in a half hour and with no law enforcement training, was that cameras could be used to monitor public places, but that the information on the camera would require judicial review to access. Proving probable cause seems like a fairly high standard, but if you figure "there was a robbery in Tiburon last night in this place...the perpetrators are likley on the following video cameras X, Y, and Z" it wouldn't be that hard of an affidavit to write whenever there's a crime.
Of course, just recording vehicles arriving and departing seems less useful, and you'd need a lower standard of proof than PC for the footage to be useful for the cops, maybe just reasonable suspicion. ("This guy says he wasn't in town the night of the robbery. Let's run the past week's logs and find out if he was there.")
In the end, though, the purpose for such safeguards is to prevent an effective law-enforcement tool from become a potential tool of someone in power with other motives. I always try to apply the WWNDWT rule when theorizing about governmental powers. (What Would Nixon Do With This)
thats easy to do.
several ways to it , the best would be to surround your License plate it IR LED's while Not visible to the Human Eye, to the camera would be like looking at a bare light bulb.
oh And Yes it is already illegal
What they really mean is that they are going to record the license plate of every black and brown person entering and leaving the town.
whatever, I was stoned and playing with tinfoil last night when i posted that.
I think that only works on lower end cameras, and if I remember correctly the stop light and speeding cameras use a 5D or comparable camera, so this way wouldn't work anyway.
Actually quite the opposite. those cameras are tuned specifically to see IR , that is how they work , they are blasting out there own IR light to get the reflection from the reflective material on the license plate.
Yep, so much more efficient to come up with a simple system which can analyze the race of a person driving a moving car and then decide to make a record, rather than than simply recording the plates of every car coming in and out of town.
Seriously, VB. You're smarter than this.
Now, if you're going to say that evidence on the tapes will only be used against black and brown people by the cops, that's another can of worms. But statistically, I'm going to place a safe bet that more crime is committed in Tiburon by black and brown people than by white people, resulting in all kinds of evidence being used mostly against black and brown people. If true, would that make the facts racist?
And I don't see the police saying, "Well, our murder suspect in this case is white...we'd better not use those tapes to prove he was in fact in Tiburon at the time of the murder."
Yes, I could easily see a racist cop in Tiburon suspecting a poor black person of murder before a rich white person. But tapes of vehicles...impartial and systematic records...would ideally be part of establishing an actual fact pattern to implicate the guilty and exonerate the innocent, regardless of an individual's racial bias, no...? Even if the cops don't want to use exculpatory evidence (which legally must be made available to the defense), a defense attorney could. And if the records were made of every car, then there'd be no way for a crooked police investigation/prosecution to hide them.
(Not that I'm necessarily for the camera system, but just saying...)
Hey MikeD, I think your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. Might be due for calibration.
Try again, muzungu.
Close enough. Besides, I was just trying to make a window to use "muzungu"
The two problems are this:
Tracking your movements without a warrant would be a 4th Amendment issue. Several state courts have ruled differently on GPS tracking: http://www.securityprivacyandthelaw.com/tags/fourth-amendment/
The problem with profiling is how it is not an exact science.
Yeah, when I see a early 90's Caddy rolling thru the neighborhood, I assume a minority (or a very old man) is behind the wheel. But what about a black man in a minivan? A friend has been pulled over several times since moving into Orinda, a town similar to Tiberon.
well, looks like i'll never be going there, not that i was ever planning on it anyway.
luckily that idea will never catch on in the areas where i'd actually want to live.
luckily that idea will never catch on in the areas where i'd actually want to live.
Camera's aren't the same as GPS tracking. Every time you pull into an ATM, parking garage, large grocery store, major transportation component (bridge, tunnel, tollbooth) etc you are filmed.
I also don't think it will increase profiling unless it's monitored in real-time. If you stand out in any community there's a higher chance of getting pulled over, regardless of race.
Whatever it takes to protect yourself from the mean streets of marin county
I also don't think it will increase profiling unless it's monitored in real-time. If you stand out in any community there's a higher chance of getting pulled over, regardless of race.
Whatever it takes to protect yourself from the mean streets of marin county
SCOTUS has ruled that tracking in public is constitutional.
The issue with the GPS trackers is the intrusiveness of the installation, not the fact that cops can follow you. This has been settled Constitutional doctrine since the 70s and radio beeper trackers.
Only issue with GPS is that when your car enters a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, the cops must shut off the GPS once they realize this, but can turn it on again when you leave. And the places your car enjoys an REP are few and pretty much always separated by public space.
Teh Editz: (From Sanjuro's page links): "The New York state court in Weaver noted that the amount of information that could be gathered from by a GPS device is much greater than a beeper in 1983 and so court may reach different results in teh future based on the technology at issue. "
! Also rofl at the legal reasoning in that statement, at least vis-a-vis the beeper/gps argument. True, scales and efficiency may change things, as I noted myself in my initial post, but a beeper and a GPS are of the exact same level of intrusiveness...one's just more effective than the other.Recanting: Nope, I's wrong. GPS and beeper are different; beepers don't store information. If the cops can GPS tag everyone's car without a warrant or at least some level of suspicion, they have a complete record of everyone's movements in public. This is police-state stuff, and the reason that in my surveillance camera examples, I would require judicial review to access the info. Good going, state supreme courts.
Last edited:
^I never trust a guy building a custom 29er any further than I can throw him.
And I throw them often.
And I throw them often.
Fact of the matter is, it's one of the safest cities in the country. It is also one of the wealthiest (*I live with the help*). The vast majority of crimes that happen in Tiburon happen at night, while residents are generally sleeping. Being that there are two ways in-out of the town by car (excluding bus and ferry as they do not operate at night) it makes sense that when you are investigating a crime in a controlled area to first look at those who are not "part of" the controlled area. If 10k cars come into/out of the town a day, and 9800 are residents, I'll look into the other 200 cars that were in town at the same time as the crime. It would never work in a more expansive area, but it works well here.
As for the crime in Marin, we have enough section 8 in Marin City to ruin the party. Let alone the proximity to SF and Oakland for other criminals.
I am a huge fan of privacy, but this is not a tracking scenario, so much as a means to deter crime because the criminals know they are being watched on a large scale.
As for the crime in Marin, we have enough section 8 in Marin City to ruin the party. Let alone the proximity to SF and Oakland for other criminals.
I am a huge fan of privacy, but this is not a tracking scenario, so much as a means to deter crime because the criminals know they are being watched on a large scale.
What are you talking about?
I go there once a month to take pics of the joker's haircuts while he sleeps.
I know I've told you about the documentary I'm working on.
This legislation is nothing but a nuisance to my work.
Frankly, I can't fault your logic.
I think technology is what makes this possible and unbiased. Every car's plate can be photographed and stored easily.
25 years ago, only the judgement of the police was used to determine which drivers were stopped.
Last edited:
Whatever you say Jeff.
Obviously others can hear the dog whistle. Affluent is of course a code-word for white.
Safety concerns is also a code-word meaning "You will bend over and I will commence f*cking you at my leisure".
A very white glow.
I should point out that why you are accurate with the demographics, I will give you an example of out-and-out racism for you to compare.
http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/10/jefferson_parish_sheriff_harry_1.html
This is Sheriff Harry Lee (who is Chinese, btw), instituting a curfew on blacks in Jefferson Parish. This was 1985.
Tiburon is taking license photos, just like they do when I drive thru the Fasttrak lane. They are not discriminating against any group except license plates which are not registered to Tiburon.
Is it racist that you don't think anyone of a race other than white can be rich?
You'd think that living in Japan might re educate him on that.
90% of Tiburon's populace is white. Only 4.5% is Asian.
What? It's not a multicultural paradise where all are freely living the American dream? I'm shocked and saddened.
There is another place in California which is what you describe. South of San Francisco, I call it Fantasyland, part of the great Disneyland area.