average speed cameras in UK

Capt.about_lunchtime wrote:
> ">
>> 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 think the issue isn't weather the motivations exist or not but that the
> apparatus is in place should these said motivations be pursued by future
> governments. Are we not leaving ourselves open. Constant vigilance should
> be applied to the maintenance of as much personal freedom as we're willing
> to commit to, or as little as may be the case. Apathy is the governments
> biggest ally in this campain.
>
> Capt. A. L.
>
>
Nicely said.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Yeebers wrote:
> confirmed. Removing what I was responding to and taking me out of
> context doesn't help. I've added it. Yes I am saying you can't believe

ah, there's that paranoia again. The comments to which you responded
are still right there in your response, untouched by me or anyone else.
You can even go back and read them again yourself, if you want, just
like anyone else could do also!

Nevermind that the comments you were responding to were an example of
what is commonly known as "sarcasm", so I don't know what you thought
you were proving anyway.

> From small things, big things grow, including invasions of privacy.
> Imagine telling someone in the 50s what the smoking laws would be -
> they'd laugh at you .. same as if someone told you in the 80s that banks
> would charge to accept and have your money.

Yes, and you can add paranoid delusional conspiracy theories to that
list of examples also.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

No, I wasn't being a dickhead I was being sarcastic. What tune number is
that you're playing ? Five isn't it ?

Damien wrote:
> Yeebers wrote:
>> confirmed. Removing what I was responding to and taking me out of
>> context doesn't help. I've added it. Yes I am saying you can't believe
>
> ah, there's that paranoia again. The comments to which you responded
> are still right there in your response, untouched by me or anyone else.
> You can even go back and read them again yourself, if you want, just
> like anyone else could do also!
>
> Nevermind that the comments you were responding to were an example of
> what is commonly known as "sarcasm", so I don't know what you thought
> you were proving anyway.
>
>> From small things, big things grow, including invasions of privacy.
>> Imagine telling someone in the 50s what the smoking laws would be -
>> they'd laugh at you .. same as if someone told you in the 80s that
>> banks would charge to accept and have your money.
>
> Yes, and you can add paranoid delusional conspiracy theories to that
> list of examples also.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Damien wrote:
> Yeebers wrote:
>> confirmed. Removing what I was responding to and taking me out of
>> context doesn't help. I've added it. Yes I am saying you can't believe
>
> ah, there's that paranoia again. The comments to which you responded
> are still right there in your response, untouched by me or anyone else.
> You can even go back and read them again yourself, if you want, just
> like anyone else could do also!

Sorry, Captain Irrational, I thought I was speaking with a coherent
human. You agree with what I say then call me paranoid ? Teehee.

> Nevermind that the comments you were responding to were an example of
> what is commonly known as "sarcasm", so I don't know what you thought
> you were proving anyway.

Nice copout - "No I am not a dickhead, I was being sarcastic" works well
just at the point where you run out of ideas.

>> From small things, big things grow, including invasions of privacy.
>> Imagine telling someone in the 50s what the smoking laws would be -
>> they'd laugh at you .. same as if someone told you in the 80s that
>> banks would charge to accept and have your money.
>
> Yes, and you can add paranoid delusional conspiracy theories to that
> list of examples also.

I probably could.. but somehow I don't equate "not wanting people
recording my every move" with "paranoia" - even your version where non
paranoid and paranoid people agree. Sounds kinda Dystopian..
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Yeebers wrote:

> Nice copout - "No I am not a dickhead, I was being sarcastic" works well
> just at the point where you run out of ideas.

Here's what I actually said in the post to which you responded:

"Well, the man at the shop said it was tin-foil, and showed me the
government seal that proves it. Are you telling me that I can't believe
the government now?"

Now, if you can't recognise that as sarcasm, then your problems are far
worse than I thought! I've done shits that were smarter than you are
coming across as being at the moment.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

0H N03S !!11!!! He's being insulting !!
Sign 2 of a loser losing .. you get abusive.
You going to invoke godwin's law next ? That's the only defence you have
left..

Damien wrote:
> Yeebers wrote:
>
>> Nice copout - "No I am not a dickhead, I was being sarcastic" works
>> well just at the point where you run out of ideas.
>
> Here's what I actually said in the post to which you responded:
>
> "Well, the man at the shop said it was tin-foil, and showed me the
> government seal that proves it. Are you telling me that I can't believe
> the government now?"
>
> Now, if you can't recognise that as sarcasm, then your problems are far
> worse than I thought! I've done shits that were smarter than you are
> coming across as being at the moment.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Yeebers wrote:
> 0H N03S !!11!!! He's being insulting !!
> Sign 2 of a loser losing .. you get abusive.
> You going to invoke godwin's law next ? That's the only defence you have
> left..
>
> Damien wrote:
>> Yeebers wrote:
>>
>>> Nice copout - "No I am not a dickhead, I was being sarcastic" works
>>> well just at the point where you run out of ideas.
>>
>> Here's what I actually said in the post to which you responded:
>>
>> "Well, the man at the shop said it was tin-foil, and showed me the
>> government seal that proves it. Are you telling me that I can't
>> believe the government now?"
>>
>> Now, if you can't recognise that as sarcasm, then your problems are
>> far worse than I thought! I've done shits that were smarter than you
>> are coming across as being at the moment.

Abusive? No, just honest. Clearly it, along with rationality, is
something with which you are unfamiliar.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Still at defcon 4...

Damien wrote:
> Yeebers wrote:
>> 0H N03S !!11!!! He's being insulting !!
>> Sign 2 of a loser losing .. you get abusive.
>> You going to invoke godwin's law next ? That's the only defence you
>> have left..
>>
>> Damien wrote:
>>> Yeebers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice copout - "No I am not a dickhead, I was being sarcastic" works
>>>> well just at the point where you run out of ideas.
>>>
>>> Here's what I actually said in the post to which you responded:
>>>
>>> "Well, the man at the shop said it was tin-foil, and showed me the
>>> government seal that proves it. Are you telling me that I can't
>>> believe the government now?"
>>>
>>> Now, if you can't recognise that as sarcasm, then your problems are
>>> far worse than I thought! I've done shits that were smarter than you
>>> are coming across as being at the moment.
>
> Abusive? No, just honest. Clearly it, along with rationality, is
> something with which you are unfamiliar.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 3, 6:12 pm, the big dog <thebyg....RemoveThis@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:26 pm, "Nev.." <id....RemoveThis@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>
Google "Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes" get:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370879-details/Drivers+ca...void+sp
> <snip>
>
> > > 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
> > > <snip>
> > > 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.
>
> > You reckon?
>
> Yup
>
Remember it can also prove your innocence and find your stolen bike!

> > What makes you think they don't record the details of every
> > vehicle passing a camera?
>
> Back when the flash was visible, the flash only took place when
> offenders went by. I'm not conspiracy theorist enough to just assume
> that the government has exceeded it's authority by doing what you
> suggest.
>

Just about every camera pointing at a road in the UK is wired up to an
ANPR system and the picture and reg, date, time & location is stored
for at least a year in a searchable database... and has been for
years. Even petrol station forecourts use them for advance
notification of drive-off petrol thieves. Look up ANPR on Wikipedia
for examples. That's why theft of number plates is such a common
offence. Expect to see individual databases join together to allow
one search to look at many regions of the UK simultaneously. Cheer up
- there is so much information swilling around the system you are
practically anonymous.

>
> AFAIK the legislation authorizing speed cameras did not authorize the
> government to collect this information.
>
> > Tollroad operators (private and public)
> > already collect information on every single vehicle passing certain
> > points, whether or not they have committed any sort of offence. Look
> > around you and you'll find that most roads which carry large volumes of
> > peak hour traffic already have video surveillance equipment which
> > collect images of every vehicle (and even people not in vehicles).
>
> > Nev..
>
> There's a big difference between a video record of a particular chunk
> of road and a record indexed by registration number. An indexed
> <snip>
> avoid private toll roads if I find the potential privacy violation
> sufficiently onerous.

Yeah, I know.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Boxer" <someone.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Never been divorced, never went for another job while still in one,
>> never had a bit on the side, never had a relative who was in trouble,
>> never had a boss who was fiddling the books and paranoid about you...
>>
>> Never done something that was legal when you did it, but was made
>> retrospectively illegal.
>>
>> Everyone has something to hide else we'd none of us wear clothes. Or
>> use funny names on the net eh Boxer <someone.RemoveThis@nowhere.com>?
>>
>> And retrospective legislation is something governments would do more
>> of if they reckon they could say "for the children!"
>
> What has any of that to do with number plate cameras?
>
Number plate cameras record where and when your vehicle has been.
What's has Zebee's post NOT got to do with number-plate cameras?
--
Clem
(Unless you just walk everywhere....)
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> "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.
>
Ditto the tax department.
--
Knob
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

On Jan 9, 9:29 am, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk....RemoveThis@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>
> I took my secretary to a Black Duck rally twice, does that count?
>
>
> Baaaaa!
>
> Theo

http://www.backfire.dk/EMPIRENORTH/newsite/products_en001.htm

See the scope software link at the bottom of the page - for actual
tracking.
 >> Stay informed about: average speed cameras in UK 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Boxer" <someone.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> Privacy is not
>> my concern increased taxation is a far more likely consequence than
>> the government being interested how many times you visit McDonalds,
>> or take your secretary to the local Motel at lunchtime.

I took my secretary to a Black Duck rally twice, does that count?

> [chortle] Even if you ignore all the history of Governmental
> corruption and misuse of information this is still a pretty silly,
> naive view. Your choice though; just don't expect the rest of us to be so
> sheeplike!

Baaaaa!

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