[ozziebeanie]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...zNOuQD9B9O5B80

heheeh maybe I could be a terrorist, lucky they did not take the software's word for it that the reporter was the same person as the terrorist, or he would be in deep doo doo

[guy2]

This is not a good idea at all ,for tax payers.

The cameras they put up all over my city are already too many too expensive and now they want more tech ,what do the cameras cost 15,000$ or something ,these things will probably double that. Yeah that's it ,we will just turn a cop car into a million dollar toy at the tax payers expense to catch would be criminals.

I see this technology going into unknowable possibility's like picking up people for unpaid parking tickets.

[ozziebeanie]

I don't think its so much, more tech, as borrowing the Motor Vehicle Agency System, and they are not allowed to down load there millions of pictures and information, just scan them to compare.

But I can see its good and bad points.

Good point - Say some pedophile, who has changed their name and living a new life somewhere, a threat to children, and they find him/her under the assumed name.

Bad point - Say they have a match to your picture say 70 or 80% match to a dangerous terrorist or arms dealer and you get thrown in a high security jail with very dangerous criminals, it takes months to convince authorities you are not that person, and by then who knows what will happen.

Generally speaking if you are not a criminal, I don't think you have much to worry about, but I would like to see a much higher rate of comparisons when it comes to pictures and more investigating done before arrests are made if they are not doing that already.

[guy2]

Originally Posted by ozziebeanie

I don't think its so much, more tech, as borrowing the Motor Vehicle Agency System, and they are not allowed to down load there millions of pictures and information, just scan them to compare.

But I can see its good and bad points.

Good point - Say some pedophile, who has changed their name and living a new life somewhere, a threat to children, and they find him/her under the assumed name.

Bad point - Say they have a match to your picture say 70 or 80% match to a dangerous terrorist or arms dealer and you get thrown in a high security jail with very dangerous criminals, it takes months to convince authorities you are not that person, and by then who knows what will happen.

Generally speaking if you are not a criminal, I don't think you have much to worry about, but I would like to see a much higher rate of comparisons when it comes to pictures and more investigating done before arrests are made if they are not doing that already.

[Generally speaking if you are not a criminal, I don't think you have much to worry about]

That saying is getting old and im not trying to kill the messenger but

I do believe that all police officers think of the average pedestrian as a potential harmful or walking piggy bank so when im walking down the street running arons and such i believe i don't need to be harassed for having a common mistake on my record years ago just by walking. Yeah it's perfectly fine for someone who hasn't had a real interaction with police but many none violent [criminals] that have had something minor will feel the heat for no good reason because police are revenue agents in out fits.

[hewee]

That has to be unlawful but so is most of the things the Government does.

Lot of the camera's at lights etc are not even own my the City's but are Private owners who you know are in it for the money and the City gets a cut of the finds.
You also not that many are not right because the times are off. I have seen many where you can be stopped at the light and it turns green and then orange as you are still going tru the light so it will turn read on the 2nd or 3rd car and that is so they can send you a tacket.
So you need to find out the law and how much time that light is to have by law and then get a video camera and record it and if like many the made the time change shorter. So now you can win you case in court.

[guy2]

yes iv seen that also ,the quick switcher ru crap they pull when you trying to make time on a unsuspecting yellow that magically turn red in a millasec when your car is little over half way threw and FLASH just enough to be filed before you get too far. When it come's to fighting tickets iv noticed a hidden don't ask don't tell relation ship in the courts so it's like the circuit courts are just large fine agencies that wont take cash or lip.

One of these days i hope someone builds an EMP pulse machine in a mini van and just drives around my city turning red light camera's into junk.

[Mumbodog]

Those that trade freedom for security deserve neither.

I prefer the price of freedom be a few bad guys on the streets, opposed to the alternative price of No freedom and the bad guys still on the streets.

[ozziebeanie]

Here in Australia Police and Traffic work in together, they are not a separate department as far as if you break the law traffic wise, but you do have to go to a different department to obtain or renew licences

They have access to information at the police station on your licence including past addresses etc, (I had mine brought up and I was amazed at how far the info went back and the amount of info also). I cheekily asked them if they had what brand of toilet paper I used) and was told probably

As its Police Officers along with other Police duties that issue traffic infringements, some general officers get rotated through this section, along with other sections of the Police station or stations.

So its already a done thing here, Police also have an Intel section where they have programs and links to data bases that any self respecting geek would think they are in heaven if they had access.

The only thing what I would call harassment that I received, where I was asked to come to a Police station to answer questions on someone that I knew, (who did not always follow the law ) they said to me that the night in question where someone was robbed, (not something he would do) that he said he was with me, and words to the effect they did not believe this at all and they gave the impression that if I backed up his story I would not be believed.

I told them yes, he was with me and with you also, as I was here at the police station bailing him out from the watch house on another matter altogether and if they checked their own records that this would confirm this.

Needless to say they did check, and no more was said and I was told I could go home, (I made them drive me home) I don't think they where very nice at all, and maybe I was lucky that I did have the best answer in that it could be proved, and apparently my friend was picked out of a line up, (not photo's,) as being the person that did this, and he was at the police station at the time it happened, go figure

I will say if he was not out at the time being an idiot and attracting Police attention, often getting into trouble over stupid things, (while drinking) then I would say, it would not have happened.

Another thing that could have proved he did not do it, is they said the person snatch this girls bag and ran off. My friend had a motorbike accident and for the rest of his life can not run, he is lucky he can walk.

Witch just proves a line up of people, a book with pictures, or a computer with tons of pictures, either way its not always correct, no matter what method you use. just like no computer program is 100% perfect

[hewee]

You know by the Constitution you still broke no law unless there was property damage or someone was hurt.
So all these are just made to make money.

[guy2]

Traffic violations run on statutes and codes or administrative law ,these are not laws unless you have agreed to abide to them under administrative terms such as heaving car registration and many other examples that would render you under the jurisdiction of the administrative. The problem is that if you were to render your self untouchable to the circuit courts you would be cast out from much of society would have many problems getting jobs finding health care and just driving down the street. So in a way they made fake laws that you cant live easy with out.

[hewee]

Yea you got to fight that driving is a right because they want to say Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right.

Driving on American Roads is a Constitutional Right , not a State ...

Legal Rights -- Constitutional Law

Frequently Asked Questions | FlexYourRights.org

[guy2]

Im planing on deregistering my car ,driving privileges and SS# birth/C

the only way i see to drive some what free so far

it is defiantly an alternative and at the same time a big problem because police do not know your rights as well as their own

[hewee]

That is the hard part in letting them know you know your right so they will not charge you for things they have no right to.
Like DMV fee I think they can only charge you the smaller fee and in some States the DMV has many charges on it now and most is just added tax they never had the right to take.
I have seen cars a couple times and your see plates on them like you do on Government cars, buses etc. Tax exempt plates or "exempt" I think. But you got to know how and they will say you don't have a right to them.
But this is the USA and we are all to have the same Constitutional Rights so they can not say only this group or that group has rights to this or that.
But they have been doing this so very long over the years making rules and laws and putting people into groups to tax and give others rights they will not give you and take away rights.

Constitutional says you gave the States the rights and and they can not do what you never gave them a right to do and the same goes for the Federal Government has no rights that the States never have them.
Look at how many years the Feds are telling all what the law is and what you can and can not do and most have done what they say.
But darn the Constitutional says what our rights are and what the States and Feds have been doing way to long they never had the rights to do.

[Mumbodog]

It is now a 3rd degree felony in Texas to "intimidate" some one on a social networking site.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stori...213b32fe6.html

H.B. 2003 states a person commits a third degree felony if the person posts one or more messages on a social networking site with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten another person

Looks like anyone saying anything negative to another person on a SN site is now a potential felon in Texas.


.

[guy2]

Originally Posted by hewee

That is the hard part in letting them know you know your right so they will not charge you for things they have no right to.
Like DMV fee I think they can only charge you the smaller fee and in some States the DMV has many charges on it now and most is just added tax they never had the right to take.
I have seen cars a couple times and your see plates on them like you do on Government cars, buses etc. Tax exempt plates or "exempt" I think. But you got to know how and they will say you don't have a right to them.
But this is the USA and we are all to have the same Constitutional Rights so they can not say only this group or that group has rights to this or that.
But they have been doing this so very long over the years making rules and laws and putting people into groups to tax and give others rights they will not give you and take away rights.

Constitutional says you gave the States the rights and and they can not do what you never gave them a right to do and the same goes for the Federal Government has no rights that the States never have them.
Look at how many years the Feds are telling all what the law is and what you can and can not do and most have done what they say.
But darn the Constitutional says what our rights are and what the States and Feds have been doing way to long they never had the rights to do.

I know this should be in civilized debate but what the hell

Constitution does not apply

Barron vs. Mayer and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243