average speed cameras in UK

On Jan 4, 11:52 am, "Boxer" <some... RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zeb... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > "What have you got to hide" is a silly question.
>
> > Any information the government has on you is for sale. All it takes
> > is one corrupt clerk, as Medicare knows full well. So if the
> > government knows where you are, so does anyone who wants to know.
>
> > Zebee
>
> What have you really got to hide, if anyone wants to know where I am all
> they have to do is call my mobile and I will tell them, paranoia seems to be
> the flavour of the month on this forum.

That's a good point Boxer, lets take it to it's logical conclusion.
Since you have nothing to hide, why not let the goverment implant a
microchip under your skin, say the back of your neck. We already do
it with cats and dogs, so why not people? That's the stick, now for
the carrot. We can link it to your bank account and you can pay for
your groceries, petrol, road tolls, and for the unemployed we can link
it to social security so we'll stop those dole bludging welfare
cheats!

Since you've got nothing to hide, you won't object to a GPS upgrade
when the technology becomes available (you might volunteer to be a
beta tester, after all, you've got nothing to hide). Then if anything
were to happen to you (God forbid) the Police would be able to locate
you and send a car to see if you're alright. Oh, and it will stop
terrorists too (more carrot for the mouth breathers).

What have you got to hide is a particularly stupid argument, the
simple answer is you won't know what you need to hide until the
Government decides it's no good for you. Information equals power
(just ask google).
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Damien wrote:

<snip>

>The only real avenue for objecting to their use
> is to either leave the UK if you live there, or never visit if you live
> somewhere else - otherwise, get used to it.

Works for me!

regards,
CrazyCam
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Boxer wrote:
> "CrazyCam" <crazycam.RemoveThis@upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:477d5641$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Boxer wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I really do not have anything to hide that would be revealed by the
>>> "Government" knowing where my vehicle was at any given time, in fact my
>>> cars are fitted with GPS tracking that is recorded and held on a private
>>> database already.
>> ..and you'd have no problems letting the cops have access to that data?
>>
>> regards,
>> CrazyCam
>
> Sure why not, particularly if someone just stole the car (the device allows
> the police to remotely disable the vehicle as well). I suppose taking it to
> the extreme the cops could monitor all cars and e-mail a speeding ticket to
> us whenever the GPS showed that the car had exceeded the speed limit.
> However the police in my area are stretched to a point of total inaction so
> I find it hard to believe that they would be interested in where I am going.
>
Don't be deliberately obtuse, Boxer, you know fine that you don't need a
person,
or even a cop, to scan data, pick up excess speed readings and e-mail a
ticket.

regards,
CrazyCam
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:50:40 GMT, "Boxer" <someone RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"CrazyCam" <crazycam RemoveThis @upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:477d5641$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Boxer wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I really do not have anything to hide that would be revealed by the
>>> "Government" knowing where my vehicle was at any given time, in fact my
>>> cars are fitted with GPS tracking that is recorded and held on a private
>>> database already.
>>
>> ..and you'd have no problems letting the cops have access to that data?
>>
>> regards,
>> CrazyCam
>
>Sure why not, particularly if someone just stole the car (the device allows
>the police to remotely disable the vehicle as well). I suppose taking it to
>the extreme the cops could monitor all cars and e-mail a speeding ticket to
>us whenever the GPS showed that the car had exceeded the speed limit.
>However the police in my area are stretched to a point of total inaction so
>I find it hard to believe that they would be interested in where I am going.
>
>
>
Boxer, as soon as revenue...oops, I mean safety control measures
become involved, they'll be interested

Johno

Coopers mate?
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Nev.." <idiot DeleteThis @mindless.com> wrote in message
news:477d8a91$0$25507$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>>>> They just have to mandate it as
>>>>> accurate, wouldn't be the first time.
>>>> Yup, legally define them as siantifik devices. Then they can't be
>>>> wrong.
>>> It'd never happen, because GPS ownership is widespread in the
>>> community, and then people would be able to use them to defend
>>> themselves against charges. They'd only use that power to label
>>> devices, such as speed measuring devices used by the police, which
>>> noone else has, as being infallible.
>>
>> It'll never happen? They'll take some really cheap Chinese model and
>> rebadge it 'for police use only' and, hey presto, there's your infallible
>> instrument.
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about but I was talking about the data
> retrieved by Boxer's privately owned GPS tracking which he voluntarily
> fitted to his own vehicles. That data is probably not admissible as
> expert evidence in court, and likely that the government would never make
> it so for the reason I gave.
>
> Nev..
> '04 CBR1100XX

Absolutely true, to be currently admissible in court the police must
calibrate their equipment on a regular basis and the equipment must be
designed and approved for law enforcement use.



Boxer
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"CrazyCam" <crazycam.RemoveThis@upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:477d90b0$0$25392$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Boxer wrote:
>> "CrazyCam" <crazycam.RemoveThis@upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:477d5641$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Boxer wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I really do not have anything to hide that would be revealed by the
>>>> "Government" knowing where my vehicle was at any given time, in fact my
>>>> cars are fitted with GPS tracking that is recorded and held on a
>>>> private database already.
>>> ..and you'd have no problems letting the cops have access to that data?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> CrazyCam
>>
>> Sure why not, particularly if someone just stole the car (the device
>> allows the police to remotely disable the vehicle as well). I suppose
>> taking it to the extreme the cops could monitor all cars and e-mail a
>> speeding ticket to us whenever the GPS showed that the car had exceeded
>> the speed limit. However the police in my area are stretched to a point
>> of total inaction so I find it hard to believe that they would be
>> interested in where I am going.
>>
> Don't be deliberately obtuse, Boxer, you know fine that you don't need a
> person,
> or even a cop, to scan data, pick up excess speed readings and e-mail a
> ticket.
>
> regards,
> CrazyCam

You do not need them but that is what occurs in Queensland, and as I was
talking about My Area, it is appropriate.

Boxer
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Johno" <varcs45.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote in message
news:vv5rn3lap32di6ik8r4eh19u6dh3h74ej0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:50:40 GMT, "Boxer" <someone.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"CrazyCam" <crazycam.TakeThisOut@upturnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:477d5641$0$4437$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Boxer wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I really do not have anything to hide that would be revealed by the
>>>> "Government" knowing where my vehicle was at any given time, in fact my
>>>> cars are fitted with GPS tracking that is recorded and held on a
>>>> private
>>>> database already.
>>>
>>> ..and you'd have no problems letting the cops have access to that data?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> CrazyCam
>>
>>Sure why not, particularly if someone just stole the car (the device
>>allows
>>the police to remotely disable the vehicle as well). I suppose taking it
>>to
>>the extreme the cops could monitor all cars and e-mail a speeding ticket
>>to
>>us whenever the GPS showed that the car had exceeded the speed limit.
>>However the police in my area are stretched to a point of total inaction
>>so
>>I find it hard to believe that they would be interested in where I am
>>going.
>>
>>
>>
> Boxer, as soon as revenue...oops, I mean safety control measures
> become involved, they'll be interested
>
> Johno
>
> Coopers mate?
>
>
The coppers will not be interested the State Politicians certainly would be,
except if they thought that they would lose votes.



Boxer
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Nev.. wrote:
> Damien wrote:
>> Boxer wrote:
>>
>>> What have you really got to hide, if anyone wants to know where I am
>>> all they have to do is call my mobile and I will tell them, paranoia
>>> seems to be the flavour of the month on this forum.
>>
>> It certainly does! I've got a good supply of tin-foil hats, going cheap.
>
> They are excellent for foiling GPS and rendering it useless.
>
> Nev..
> '04 CBR1100XX

And they will also protect the AusMoto faithful from GovCo. Better get
in quick though, demand is skyrocketing, and the price will soon follow.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

>
> You reckon? What makes you think they don't record the details of every
> vehicle passing a camera? They only send fines to lawbreakers, but with
> digital technologies used in most fixed speed cameras it doesn't cost
> the operators any more to record the details of all vehicles passing the
> camera, speeding or not.

the safety cam system records ALL trucks,that pass under it, so the
presumption of innocence must not apply to trucks. It is owned by RTA,
not police .

Mick
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Damien <al.qa....RemoveThis@asio.gov.au> wrote:
> the big dog wrote:
> > My main objection to these is on privacy grounds and on the basis of
> > the presumption of innocence. a Radar speed camera only records the
> > location of lawbreakers, assuming it functions correctly. The state
> > is entirely justified in collecting information relating to an offense
> > that is known to have taken place. Average speed cameras record the
> > location of every motorist passing a given point, regardless of
> > whether or not the motorists have committed an offense. I consider
> > permitting the state to collect information on the basis that an
> > offense _might_ take place to be profoundly dangerous and a violation
> > of both privacy rights and the right to presumption of innocence.
>
> Then you must also object to living in the UK in general then? CCTV
> cameras are more common than a politician's lies over there, and have
> been used to keep innocent people under surveillance for many years now.
> Given the precedent established by their extensive and unchallenged use,
> you haven't got a leg to stand on if you think you could oppose the
> introduction of a road-based equivalent such the 'average speed cameras'
> that have been proposed. The only real avenue for objecting to their use
> is to either leave the UK if you live there, or never visit if you live
> somewhere else - otherwise, get used to it.

I don't live there, I live in Australia. We're not quite at the point
the UK has got to and I'd really prefer not to see it go that far
either. hence I clearly express my opposition when the subject is
raised in an Australian forum.

Not that I'm all that hopeful what with all the trusting souls like
boxer going around implying you must have something to hide if you
value privacy but I intend to go down swinging anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 4, 12:07 pm, Damien <al.qa....DeleteThis@asio.gov.au> wrote:
> the big dog wrote:
> > I don't. I challenge his right to put up a camera and connect it to
> > OCR software to perform that function automatically.
>
> So what do you say to the AFP in Canberra, who have a wonderful new
> gadget (introduced a few years back now, so maybe not so new?) which
> does just that? It's a hand-held device which lets them check instantly
> the rego status of any vehicle they may spot, and it's been an
> enormously useful and beneficial law-enforcement tool.
>
> The NSW police have devices that perform a similar function, and which
> are used by police in speed traps to observe and check vehicles that
> pass them. Again, a very useful and beneficial law enforcement tool.
>
> In neither case are innocent and law-abiding citizens inconvenienced or
> deprived in any way whatsoever. But large numbers of unregistered and
> stolen vehicles have been picked up that would otherwise have not been
> noticed, and that's a good thing for all of us.
>
> Like it or not, you're fighting a losing battle if you think you can
> object to this on any legal grounds. Maybe you have a case ethically,
> but legally you have no case at all, no matter how strongly you may feel
> about the matter.

The law does not create politics, politics creates the law. What is
required is first to convince the public of the ethical issues
involved, second to convince them to vote on the basis of the ethical
issues involved and third to convince politicians that unless they
act, their career will emulate the glories that John Howard enjoyed in
2008

no one need ever to step inside a courtroom in order to accomplish
this end.

The first step is referred to as consciousness raising. I don't
expect the battle against governments electronic encroachments upon
peoples privacy to be a short one, but it is a battle that must be one
if the word freedom is to have any meaning at the end of the 21st
century.

Any assurances that I must simply "get used to it" is a waste of
electrons, so I hope your electrons were recycled
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Damien" <al.qaeda DeleteThis @asio.gov.au> wrote in message
news:flk08f$rbp$1@aioe.org...
> the big dog wrote:
>
>> My main objection to these is on privacy grounds and on the basis of
>> the presumption of innocence. a Radar speed camera only records the
>> location of lawbreakers, assuming it functions correctly. The state
>> is entirely justified in collecting information relating to an offense
>> that is known to have taken place. Average speed cameras record the
>> location of every motorist passing a given point, regardless of
>> whether or not the motorists have committed an offense. I consider
>> permitting the state to collect information on the basis that an
>> offense _might_ take place to be profoundly dangerous and a violation
>> of both privacy rights and the right to presumption of innocence.
>
> Then you must also object to living in the UK in general then? CCTV
> cameras are more common than a politician's lies over there, and have been
> used to keep innocent people under surveillance for many years now. Given
> the precedent established by their extensive and unchallenged use, you
> haven't got a leg to stand on if you think you could oppose the
> introduction of a road-based equivalent such the 'average speed cameras'
> that have been proposed. The only real avenue for objecting to their use
> is to either leave the UK if you live there, or never visit if you live
> somewhere else - otherwise, get used to it.

A precedent, one way or the other, is not established until it has been
challenged.

P
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK