----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Anderson" <grooveee@OPTUSHOME.COM.AU>


> My best friend from childhood was brain damaged when somebody ran a red
> light and hit their mini he was 16.
> He was in the tryout team for a major football team here and was a shoo
in.
> He is 24 now, lives with his mother and a full time carer, he cant see
> properly,
> he has learnt basically how to speak again (kinda) though so he is making
> progress.
> recently he has learnt to walk with the aid of a crutch, but is limited to
> about 10 meters before he falls over.
>
> you still want your freedom to run red lights?

There is no "freedom" to run red lights.  It's clearly against the law in
virtually all jurisdictions and offenders should be prosecuted (or executed
IMO).  Again, if you read my message carefully you will see that I am not
defending red-light runners.  I'm defending the large potential for invasion
of privacy by such automated systems and the concentration of infinite
amounts of knowledge of citizens whereabouts within a single branch of
government.  The opportunities for abuse are rampant.

I don't run red lights, and I think it's tragic that people do.  Your story,
like many common arguments for the reduction of privacy, is very emotionally
moving.  The knee-jerk (and ultimately irresponsible) reaction to such a
story is to immediately try to stop any possibility of the recurrance,
regardless of the costs to the individual or society as a whole.  The
incident you've presented is indeed very tragic, and I am moved by it.  I
drive cautiously to avoid such situations.  But it is not grounds for
installation of large-scale systems that could be used (and most certainly
will be once installed) to invade law-abiding citizens privacy.

> if people obeyed the speed limit then they wouldn't be slamming their
brakes
> on when their radar detector went off.
> if people obeyed the law then they wouldn't slam the brakes on when they
> passed a cop on the side of the road either.
> if people didn't run red lights my friend wouldn't be the near vegetable
he
> currently is.

But people do, and no matter what is done to stop it there will always be
mistakes.

> People however are as a rule stupid.
> A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
> You need laws so that stupid people know what is common sense and actually
> do it.

People are not as a rule stupid.  You gotta believe that people are good at
heart, educatable, and have a deep rooted desire to be good.  Education is
the cure for what you call "stupidity", not laws.  I'm sure the person who
ran the redlight has wished every day of his life he hadn't done it.  In all
probability he didn't intend to.  Certainly if he had known the consequences
he wouldn't have.  People are human, and human errors account for stupidity
more than any lack of intelligence does.  Please don't be so disillusioned
with our race to really believe what you're saying.

> When Australians talk about speeding fines its different to what I have
> heard of American fines.
> a 0-15km/h ticket here is around $150
> if you are doing 16km km over the speed limit on a long weekend or similar
> you loose 6 points off your license and a $500 fine
> licenses have 12 points and you gain 2 points per year up to 12.
> 30k over and its a $1000 fine.
> As far as I'm aware we have one of the lowest rates of road deaths per
> capita in the world. It seems to me that aside from Australians being
> naturally better than everybody else it may have something to do with the
> system working.
>
> Americans seem to have funny ideas about freedom.
> Free to shoot people and run them over in our SUV's.
> Is it any wonder why your free state has such problems?

What problems are those again?  If you're talking about the price we pay for
the closest thing in this world to freedom, then I'll take those problems
any day.

> here is a counter argument to your spiel against red light cameras.
> ok say the system is abused, 15 people per year are "harassed" unfairly
cos
> they I dunno drive oddly
> now with a red light camera on every intersection (presumably doing plate
> checks for stolen, unregistered, and wanted cars and checking for
speeding)
> you are going to cut the number of people running those reds and speeding
> drastically no?
> now even if we say that only a small percentage of
> fatalities and injuries are due to speeding, you have still removed those
> fatalities and the other people who obey they law are no worse off. Now of
> the 43,220 people who died in 2003 (in America) say 5% of those were speed
> related and were stopped. you just saved 2000 lives.
> now I know people are going to die on the roads, fact of life. My friend
is
> one of those statistics, and I still drive my car so don't bitch to me
about
> that. but don't get on your high horse talking "freedom" this and "spy's"
> that until one of your friends or family has had their life and the lives
of
> their family destroyed, (the mother is now basically a full time nurse and
> the sister couldn't hack it and moved 3000km away) by what you are saying
> its your right in life to do.

It seems you're misunderstanding again.  I'm not saying anybody has a right
to speed or run redlights.  I'm saying that if the method of enforcement of
these laws leads to loss of privacy then its not worth it.

> I drive at the speed limit, not above, not below (unless the conditions
> warrant driving slower). I obey all the road rules. If I can safely stop
for
> an orange light I do so. I am generally peaceful and relaxed. I am
> courteous. after all those "freedoms" have been taken away yaknow what,
> sometimes I get to places 10 minutes after friends who do speed, and
> generally have a disregard for the road rules. but when I arrive I have a
> clean conscience, I'm calmer and not stressed, and my fuel bill is around
> half that of the other peoples.

I'm glad to hear you're a safe driver, and I do appreciate your comments.
With respect, I'm glad you enjoy living in Australia and it seems to suit
you well.  I, on the other hand, enjoy very much living here in the US with
all our "problems".  So the world spins.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Philip Stortz
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:03 AM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT]: detecting emergency vehicles. Radar fools & Red light
> cams
>
>
> the transmitters you describe are highly illegal, and it's a federal
> offense.  the police tried this when radar detectors first came out.
> they were hooking speed guns to car batteries and hiding them on the
> side of the road.  they were taken to court somewhere and it was ruled a
> violation of their operating license.  it's also obnoxious as hell to be
> putting out microwaves at everyone.  rf exposure is not good for you,
> nidgets with cell phones are bad enough.  also consider the increased
> likely hood of accidents as you are encouraging people to suddenly slam
> on the brakes and creating a greater speed differential on the road as
> those with radar detectors slow down and the majority with out them do
> not.  speed differential correlates very strongly with accident rate.
> you are actually endangering drivers, both those speeding with radar
> detectors and those without them speeding or otherwise.
>
> as far as the camera's, do you honestly want such a system?  if so
> please move to singapore, you do not deserve to live in the U.S. and
> clearly don't value your freedom or privacy.  how long do you suppose it
> would take for such a system to be abused to track people's movement and
> then harass those with "unusual" or "suspicious" movement patterns.  how
> long before it is abused to black male people who see prostitutes or???
> the police are sadly some of the least trust worthy people out there.
> in NY state last year 3 fbi agents were arrested, they were collecting
> sensitive information on wealthy individuals and then either black
> mailing them or making the information public to manipulate stock prices
> - after speculating on them (it somehow seems contrary to the function
> of the stock market and economy that you can make money betting a
> company will lose value).  seriously, city police are sadly some of the
> most dishonest and dangerous people out there.  according to readers
> digest (hardly a left wing publication, in fact rather conservative)
> amongst blue collar workers police are the most likely to be child
> molesters!  this from a study designed to determine which group of
> people were best and worst in terms of trusting them for child care.
> and, consider the cost of these systems, you could indeed have many more
> properly trained police on the street for the same price.  they are not
> cheap to operate.
>
> in london england where they were dumb enough to put in a massive camera
> system designed and sold as a counter terrorism measure a recent audit
> found that the officers monitoring the cameras spend most of there time
> electronically "stalking" or watching attractive young women!  hardly
> what the citizens intended the system for.  the system has not caught
> any terrorist with it's facial recognition software, but several false
> positives have resulted in innocent people being harassed.  facial
> recognition software is actually still very, very poor despite industry
> claims otherwise.  reading license plates is easier, but you will still
> get false positives.  how many innocent people have to be pulled over at
> gun point before it's a bad idea?  how much freedom and privacy is it
> worth?  it's true that in the uk petty crimes like muggings have gone
> down, which is good, but i hardly think it's worth the lost privacy and
> the probability of the system being abused by officers.  such systems
> are extremely useful for dishonest officers who want to steal or rape
> people, and sadly there are many such people who have badges.  a
> surveillance society is not a good thing.  power corrupts, absolute, and
> these are very powerful systems for abuse.  in fact i'd say they are
> more useful for abuse than they are for legitimate law enforcement.
> it's bad enough already.  right here in casper wyoming, where i live a
> city cop was arrested last year, he was using police surveillance
> equipment to spy on his ex girl friend, who was a county sheriffs
> deputy!  and the deputy had a restraining order.  just imagine how he
> could have followed or harassed her with a wide spread camera system
> with license plate or facial recognition.  and it's not an isolated
> occurrence, this type of thing happens all over, all the time.  the cost
> to the individuals who's privacy is violated is a serious thing.  again,
> i'd actually like to see more police, but they must be paid and trained
> better, and they must be accountable to the people they police!
>
> i actually trust the insurance companies not to abuse this equipment
> more than i would trust the police, especially if it's in a mobil van
> rather than a bunch of stationary points.  for one the the insurance
> company expects results which reduces the time operators have to abuse
> the system.
>
> as far as yanking vehicles from the road for excessive violations, you
> seem to misunderstand the law.  vehicles do not violate the law, drivers
> do.  if someone violates the driving laws excessively their license is
> revoked/suspended, not the vehicles.  do you really think it a good
> thing to have other family members constantly pulled over or harassed
> just because someone else used that vehicle to violate the law?  it's
> very common for more than one person to drive a given vehicle at
> different times.  do you honestly want people pulled over and harassed
> several times on their way to the grocery store because of what a spouse
> or child did?  do you really want to waste scarce police resources on
> this rather than having them concentrate on pulling over people who are
> seriously violating the law in real time?  do you have any idea of the
> difference between real crime and minor offenses?  do you think the
> police do or should have unlimited resources and powers?  if so, again
> please move to china or singapore, you will like the fascism that is
> sadly present in these countries.
>
> today's computer and video technology is not cheap, it's not cheap to
> install, or operate.  that takes people and computers and systems that
> are maintained not by the police but by expensive third parties.  it's a
> gross waste and misdirection of resources.  and it's just the type of
> system that lends itself to easy abuse.
>
> if you want to live in a surveillance society, move to china where half
> the population is literally spying on their neighbors for the government
> on a part time basis. where every apartment building has a "private"
> citizen working and reporting directly to the government on any
> suspicious activities, political or otherwise, of the residents, a
> person who the residents feel obligated to invite to diner regularly to
> demonstrate that they "have nothing to hide".  believe me, if you like
> freedom you have a lot to hide in such a society.
>
> current systems are already being grossly abused.  airlines have a "no
> fly" list provided by the government, with bush and aschroft in power
> those who have criticized them publicly have been put on this list.
> people have been put on the no fly list for legal political activity
> (dissent is the most important thing to have in a democracy), not
> because they are a threat to the plane or other passengers, but because
> those in power perceive them to be a poetical threat.  just imagine if
> they could also target these people for more vigorous enforcement of
> traffic laws and other misdemeanors.  do you understand the difference
> between a violent felon and a non violent misdemeanor?  do you really
> think we need to keep letting violent criminals out of prison early to
> make room for non violent offenders?  do you really want a country with
> political prisoners?  if so, get the hell out.  it's not "america love
> it or leave it", it's "love freedom or get the hell out of the U.S.".
> if you want a police state move to one, don't make a free state into
> your fascist dream land (and i promise you you'll seen realize it's a
> nightmare).
>
> besides, contrary to popular belief, giving up freedoms does not make
> you more secure.  it simply moves the threat from the anonymous and
> poorly funded to the known and well funded government.  this is not an
> improvement.
>
> Robert Rolf wrote:
> >
> > Dwayne Reid wrote:
> > >
> > > At 10:41 AM 6/15/2004, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> > > >OK, WAY off topic, but MAYBE it could be done with a PIC... Is anyone
> > > >aware of a LEGAL transmitter that would trip consumer radar
detectors?
> I'd
> > > >sure like to have one in my car as people pass me at 20 or 30 miles
per
> > > >hour over the speed limit...
> > >
> > > Do a web search for "trolling for tailgates".  What you are describing
> is
> > > on-going serious fun for a few mental midgets on American highways.
I'm
> > > seriously considering joining the party <grin>.
> > >
> > > dwayne
> >
> > An enterprising amateur radio operator in the Spokane WA area has
> > been selling gunn diode oscillators to the locals, who put them out
> > near the roads in their neighborhoods to slow down traffic since it
> > fools radar detectors into blasting on.
> >
> > Given the recent discussions in our City about reducing the posted
> > residential speed limit, it might be a cheap solution.
> > You make this kind of stuff. Might be a nice niche product for you.
> >
> > And the latest toy is  $100k van equipped with TV cameras and
> > image recognition software that checks license plates for status as
> > 'stolen'. Found two stolen vehicles the first day of use. The insurance
> > industry expects to pay for it's cost within a few weeks (at $25 a write
> off).
> > Vicar is the trade name.
> >
> > If EVERY red light camera were electronic, and vehicles could be yanked
> > from the road for more than a few violations, we'd quickly get rid
> > of the dangerous drivers, since you can't have a cop on every corner
> > but you can afford to have 4 cameras per intersection given the
> > low cost of today's computer/video technology.
> >
> > Robert
> ----------
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads