average speed cameras in UK

Peter Wyzl wrote:

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

Actually, I think you will find that the sheer scale of the CCTV
network, the extensive use in law-enforcement activities, and the
failure of people to prevent further networks being activated despite
objections (among other things), constitutes more than sufficient precedent.

Unless you're some kind of hotshot lawyer who has both the balls and the
ability to negate these and other facts of CCTV use, and have the
networks dismantled?
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Damien" <al.qaeda.TakeThisOut@asio.gov.au> wrote in message
news:fll2i3$gg2$2@aioe.org...
> Peter Wyzl wrote:
>
>> A precedent, one way or the other, is not established until it has been
>> challenged.
>
> Actually, I think you will find that the sheer scale of the CCTV network,
> the extensive use in law-enforcement activities, and the failure of people
> to prevent further networks being activated despite objections (among
> other things), constitutes more than sufficient precedent.
>
> Unless you're some kind of hotshot lawyer who has both the balls and the
> ability to negate these and other facts of CCTV use, and have the networks
> dismantled?

Until and unless that happens a legal precedent doesn't exist.

Imagine the cost of reparations if challenged and found to be illegal....

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

the big dog wrote:

> Any assurances that I must simply "get used to it" is a waste of
> electrons, so I hope your electrons were recycled

I just hope you realise that obsessive paranoia is not exactly a very
healthy state of mind. But if you're happy with that, then I suppose
that's just fine.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Peter Wyzl wrote:

> Until and unless that happens a legal precedent doesn't exist.
>
> Imagine the cost of reparations if challenged and found to be illegal....

I think you missed the point. Just slightly. Apart from the points which
I raised (and which you conveniently ignored), if there truly were any
legitimate grounds for legal challenge, then surely you can realise that
such a challenge most assuredly would have been mounted already? And not
only that, but it would have been pursued very publicly and very
aggressively. And yet the only public response thus far has been a lot
of useless and pathetic grumbling about how unfair and illegal it all is.

Sorry, but if it truly were illegal, the CCTV networks would have been
shut down years ago.

Maybe it's time to emigrate from fantasy land, and relocate to the real
world instead? We may not like it, and we may not accept it, and we may
campaign to have it changed - but the fact still remains that it is
legal, and it will continue to be something we must live with until such
time as the current legal protections are withdrawn. A helpful thing to
remember is that you will be more effective in gaining the reforms that
you seek if you don't come across as an uninformed and paranoid lunatic
- I know you're not, but that's how many of the comments in this thread
are coming across even so.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 4, 11:40 pm, Damien <al.qa... RemoveThis @asio.gov.au> wrote:
> the big dog wrote:
> > Any assurances that I must simply "get used to it" is a waste of
> > electrons, so I hope your electrons were recycled
>
> I just hope you realise that obsessive paranoia is not exactly a very
> healthy state of mind. But if you're happy with that, then I suppose
> that's just fine.

There is nothing even remotely paranoid about being concerned about
the potential for abuses created by government use of information
gathering technologies. Your attitude that voters in a democratic
form of government must simply resign themselves to the idea that the
government that they control will do whatever it pleases regardless of
their desires is not only irrational, it is profoundly irresponsible.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 5, 3:20 pm, Damien <al.qa....RemoveThis@asio.gov.au> wrote:
> the big dog wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 11:40 pm, Damien <al.qa....RemoveThis@asio.gov.au> wrote:
> >> the big dog wrote:
> >>> Any assurances that I must simply "get used to it" is a waste of
> >>> electrons, so I hope your electrons were recycled
> >> I just hope you realise that obsessive paranoia is not exactly a very
> >> healthy state of mind. But if you're happy with that, then I suppose
> >> that's just fine.
>
> > There is nothing even remotely paranoid about being concerned about
> > the potential for abuses created by government use of information
> > gathering technologies. Your attitude that voters in a democratic
> > form of government must simply resign themselves to the idea that the
> > government that they control will do whatever it pleases regardless of
> > their desires is not only irrational, it is profoundly irresponsible.
>
> No, there is nothing paranoid about being concerned. But their is
> something paranoid about being so obsessed that you start to imagine
> motivations and agendas that simply don't exist.

I went back over my posts to this thread and in not one post did I
propose agendas or motivations of any sort. In just one post, I
indicated that politicians are corrupt enough to play the "why can't
somebody think of the children" card by accusing their opponents of
supporting paedophiles. Given the Federal Labor governments response
to resistance to internet filtering, this seems to me to be an
entirely justifiable concern.

> You seem to be more
> willing to put fictional words into my mouth than to stop and consider
> what I'm actually saying.

did you not say: "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."

It seems to me that it is you putting fictional words into my mouth,
not the other way around.

> I never said there is no problem, or no need
> for action

No indeed. You have merely repeatedly stated that there is no avenue
which can be taken to prevent the erosion of our freedom via
government use of emerging technologies and that we must "get used to
it". This attitude is irrational in that democratic governments can
be controlled by voters as has been demonstrated to John Howards
chagrin just recently and irresponsible in that it ignores the source
of a democratic governments authority: the very people whom you have
suggested have no option but to submit to that authority.

> - what I did say is that the words and actions that I've seen
> from most people in this thread thus far stem not from rationality and
> reason, but from delusional paranoia.

Yet you have done nothing to substantiate these allegations of
paranoia such as drawing attention to particular statements which
illustrate your point. This being the case, I'm having difficulty
taking your allegations seriously.

> Until they realise this, and start
> to introduce some reality to their campaign and concerns, no one who
> matters is ever going to listen to them, and the problem will just get
> worse - and is that *really* what you want to happen???
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 5, 5:18 pm, Damien <al.qa....DeleteThis@asio.gov.au> wrote:
> You're obviously happier being a deluded fool than a rational person, so
> maybe I should just leave you to your fantasies, and return to the real
> world myself? Keep in mind that I'm not simply responding to you alone,

That's just flat disingenuous: coming as it does directly after you
outright call me a deluded fool (please please please deny it), not to
mention that you made a clear statement about delusions and paranoia
in direct response to one of my posts.

If I'm as deluded and foolish as you say, just come right out and show
exactly where I have said anything that unfairly implies that erosion
of our freedom is a result of malice.

> but to all the paranoid delusional consiracy freaks who think the
> government is out to get us all. If that's the sort of world view that
> keeps you happy, then you're welcome to it.

Anytime you want top quote me saying this, go right ahead.

[removes gauntlet]
[thwaps damien about chops with gauntlet]
[throws gauntlet to floor]
I challenge thee to a quote.


 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 5, 7:01 pm, Damien <al.qa... RemoveThis @asio.gov.au> wrote:
> the big dog wrote:
> > I challenge thee to a quote.
>
> >
>
> Here's a few quotes for you then:
>
> 2/1/08 10:03 PM - your deluded ramblings that use of speed cameras
> somehow deprives innocent people of their privacy.

That's not even remotely an example of me attributing malice to
government as you claim. It's a difference of opinion between you and
me, nothing more.

> 3/1/08 6:12 PM - more of your deluded ramblings that the government has
> no right to collect the details of motorists passing speed cameras.

That's not even remotely an example of me attributing malice to
government as you claim. It's a difference of opinion between you and
me, nothing more.

> 3/1/08 6:38 PM - and yet more of your deluded ramblings challenging the
> right of government agencies to perform their lawful duties.

That's not even remotely an example of me attributing malice to
government as you claim. It's a difference of opinion between you and
me, nothing more.

> That's some pretty solid evidence of your paranoid delusions, even more
> so when it is pointed out that your criticisms over surveillance of
> motorists is entirely limited to government activities. But what about
> private companies that do the same, or more?

And when one single providers roads become so ubiquitous that I cannot
avoid using them, I'll take issue with that. Til then, I'll simply
avoid private motorways if and when I have a problem with their
surveillance.

> If you've ever been
> anywhere near a Sydney motorway, then you've also been under a far
> higher degree of surveillance than from any government camera anywhere
> else. Yet where is your concern and criticism about these actions
> performed by completely unaccountable private organisations? At least
> the government is accountable to the people, but who are these companies
> accountable to?

Their consumers.

> If you truly had concerns about privacy, then your
> concerns would be universal - yet I don't think I've seen even a single
> word of criticism for private collectors of personal data, perhaps
> because you've been so obsessed with your biased and uninformed crusade
> against 'the government' instead.

Yet you have still failed to demonstrate your central claim that I
(or, for that matter, anyone else) have attributed malice to
government.

You began by claiming that surveillance is a done deal and we must
live with it.

When this argument failed, you claimed that all along, you had been
claiming instead that I, or some unspecified other poster, had
attributed malice to government thus demonstrating paranoid delusions

Now your claim is that all along you were calling me and those I agree
with paranoid and delusional because we disagree with your
characterization of the intrusiveness of government surveillance.

I can only conclude that you are an idiot and have not one skerrik of
justification or logic to back up anything that you have stated in
this thread.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

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.

Pfft! As if the government would let you buy *REAL* tin-foil these
days!


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

"Damien" <al.qaeda.DeleteThis@asio.gov.au> wrote in message
news:fll9jt$5kf$1@aioe.org...
> the big dog wrote:
>
>> Any assurances that I must simply "get used to it" is a waste of
>> electrons, so I hope your electrons were recycled
>
> I just hope you realise that obsessive paranoia is not exactly a very
> healthy state of mind. But if you're happy with that, then I suppose
> that's just fine.

I wouldn't have thought it was obsessive paranoia to show concern that a
government might abuse its power.. Crkey, when "nice conservative" Johnny
controlled both houses his megalomania started peeking through, and all he
had to say to justify his excesses was "we have a mandate".

I think it's healthy to show some caution (and suspicion) regarding
governments and the erosion of our freedoms. It's "ostrich-ism" to blithely
assume that any goverment "knows best" and give it a free hand to do
whatever it wants.

"Obsessive paranoia" is that MI5 persecution bloke who posts a bazillion
times a day...

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

> 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!
>

Why bother, I'm sure he has a mobile phone.

Playing the devil because it is so easy!


 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Peter" <someone.TakeThisOut@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:P0xfj.135450$_U3.45106@newsfet19.ams...
>
>> 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!
>>
>
> Why bother, I'm sure he has a mobile phone.
>
> Playing the devil because it is so easy!
>
>

Mobile phone, credit cards, bank access cards, E-Toll Tags, telephone and
internet accounts, Titles Office records, Medicare and MBF records, Army
Service records, Passport files, ASIO files, Drivers Licence records etc.



If "Big Brother" or "The Man" really want to find me or want to know what I
am doing they really don't need to stick a GPS transmitter up my butt all
they have to do is some rudimentary searches.



My greatest protection against "Big Brother" is being just boring enough
that no one really cares where I am or what I am doing at any given time.
Paranoia is thinking that you important enough to be interesting to those
with the power to access those details.



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

>
> 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.

There was an episode on one of those "current affair" type shows after the
news that had a disgruntled former employee who managed to obtain the
records of a transport company gps logs.
This information recorded when the truck was not moving, when it was moving,
where it was and how fast it was traveling every 5-10 or 15 minutes (sorry).
This information was handed over to police though I think the biggest drama
for the transport company would be loss of clients and insurance problems as
it was easy to prove that this was not one or two rebel drivers.


 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK