We told you in September about Redflex’s ambitious plans to become a quasi-government agency as they continue to publicly express interest in playing an active role in “Homeland Security.”
Now, those ambitions are already seeing the light of day in a dangerous, crime-ridden community full of terrorists: Show Low, Arizona.
A document released to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), and obtained by CameraFRAUD.com, shows the chilling nature of what happens when technology runs wild without consideration for civil liberties.
(Excerpt Below, or click the image above to see .pdf.)
Redflex Executes New Speed Enforcement Contract with Advanced Neural Network Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Engine for Real-Time Notification of Vehicles of Interest
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Redflex Holdings Limited, is pleased to announce a new comprehensive photo enforcement contract with the City of Show Low, Arizona
[...]
As the commercial and tourism hub of the White Mountains, Show Low maintains a seasonal population approaching 30,000.
The contract scope includes fixed combination speed and red-light systems with the advanced Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) application for up to 10 systems with a term of five years plus two, two-year renewals.[...]
The Redflex solution provides our law enforcement partners a new bundled crime fighting device that provides real-time license plate cross-checks against various local, regional, state-wide and national databases for identifying vehicles of interest, and that notifies the authorities of identified situations including stolen vehicles, felony suspects and suspects of Amber Alerts.
December 12, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
Jan 6th is Show Lows next city council meeting
http://www.calendar31.com/display.aspx?org=TO5556&date=1/6/2009%207:00:00%20PM#1616.44344329834
December 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
Show Low first, next the state. Nice to know we’ll always be easily tracked whereever we go, without the need for those pesky warrants or probable cause.
December 12, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
I had planned to build a vacation home in Show Low, but it sounds like a community governed by paranoid schizophrenics…I believe I don’t want to live there now!
December 12, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
If this system uses OCR then I wounder how hard it would be to confuse the system by putting letters of about the same size and font on other parts of the vehicle near the plate.
Also on that note I wounder how hard it would be for Fraudflex to program their cameras to look for certain bumper stickers? I don’t know… like maybe ones that say Camerafraud.com. Then they would know where their enemies are at all times and “act accordingly” which would probably include sending tickets to people with said bumperstickers for whatever fraudulent charges they can think of.
December 12, 2008 at 10:16 pm |
“But, if you’re not speeding you have nothing to worry about!”
(Funny how all those types of comments dried up all of a sudden, huh?)
You wanna know what else is funny? I was looking around my office the today, and noticed the growing preponderance of anti-reflective coatings or other techniques people use. Time once was, I thought to myself that were I a policeman, I’d go out of my way to target those people. When I’d see pulled over and their plate was obscured, I’d mentally hope they got what they “deserved” and that the policeman threw the book at them. After all, license plates exist for a reason and to intentionally block them, to go out of you way to intentionally hinder law enforcement just seems wrong.
But as I walked through the parking lot, I started noticing that several people who I know quite well have recently put AR coatings on– and this got me thinking– I know these people. They aren’t the ones out there weaving in and out of traffic, they aren’t lawbreakers and speed-fiends. They’re responsible working people, some with spouses and kids, who either just can’t afford a ticket or are as outraged as I am about this whole Orwellian nightmare and decided to take some preventative action.
And that’s when it really hit me like a ton of bricks, because I got to thinking that maybe I need this. Me. A person who for years has looked down at “those people” who do that. I can’t stand the thought, but it’s not like I have much choice. I can’t avoid being illicitly monitored, even if I am completely within the law and obey all rules regulations etc. No matter what, I’m being watched under suspicion of… something. Don’t know what, yet, but I’m sure I’ll be told after the fact.
The AR coating is looking better and better. I may just have to turn to the Dark Side myself.
We are right now today witnessing nothing less than the persistent criminalization of normal law-abiding citizens like you and I.
December 13, 2008 at 1:43 am |
Screw the Rothschilds and their tentacles woven throughout the world. My family settled the White Mountains and Gary Butler and his chronies did everything to steal my families land and livelihood!
December 13, 2008 at 2:18 am |
Hear, hear No One! I have yet to hear it said by anyone better than how you said it. This movement isn’t about breaking the law and getting away with it, it is about our right to be innocent until proven guilty. There are plenty of people here who are law abiding citizens who are just fed up with the government sitting in wait to find a reason, any reason, to take our money. But there are others who still don’t see it that way, and that is sad. I am glad you have seen the light. Spread the word brother.
December 13, 2008 at 9:52 am |
This new law takes effect Jan1, 2009. Please understand you can have a license plate frame holder as long as it doesn’t cover the name Arizona on the top your license plate, if the license plate frame holder covers the name Arizona you’ll receive from the nice police officer a $130.00 ticket! Unless he’s a nice officer and gives you a chance… yea right! This is your responsibility as privileged Arizona drivers to know new motor vehicle laws, the state doesn’t send out mailings. For more info on new motor vehicle laws click on the link below. So if you have a frame holder that covers the name Arizona on your license plate remove it before Jan 1, 2009 and replace it with one that doesn’t cover the name Arizona.
http://www.azdot.gov/MVD/WhatsNew/whatsnew_2008.asp
December 13, 2008 at 9:53 am |
Their not taking your money you idiots, your breaking the law by speeding. Ever see a dead body after a car wreck from some Moron driving in a hurry or running a red light. Get a life people they are here to stay and I think it is great.
December 13, 2008 at 9:56 am |
Hey dgpjr777, your side is flailing its arms. You’re drowning. It’s all you can do to keep your head above water. If you want to learn how to swim, go get some swimming lessons. Until then, stay out of the pool.
December 13, 2008 at 10:12 am |
dgpjr777: People will die in auto accidents even if you put the cameras IN the cars.
In fact, the world death rate has remained at a solid 100% now for millions of years.
The question is:
is it better to live your own free life, full of risks (and opportunity), or should government put us all in straightjackets and institutionalize the entire population for their “own good”?
December 13, 2008 at 10:30 am |
Wow you guys are paranoid.
Technology is being introduced that could save your stolen vehicle or even better, possibly save a child’s life and all you can do is bitch and moan about big brother.
December 13, 2008 at 10:34 am |
I had to drive down the I-10 again last night. What a mess we’ve made of that freeway. Cameras evreywhere. Personally, if I were a camerafraudster, I’d flip them all the bird because you can’t be sent an obscenity in the mail. And beleive me, I have to see a lot of those every day.
As for paranioa, that’s what keeps those cameras running. If people weren’t so paranoid about someone driving 66 mph on an Interstate, the whole program would be a flop. And if AZ wasn’t filled with a bunch of wussies and HOA types, Redflex and those A-holes at ATS would be finished. However, it’s not and you’re all TOOLS so pay up and stop complaining. I’ve got mouths to feed.
December 13, 2008 at 11:13 am |
If these cameras only served as “public service instruments” to advise us of our speed and, or, road conditions (with no financial penalty involved), how would we react?
December 13, 2008 at 11:35 am |
I’ll keep Showlow off my list of places to visit this winter. Too bad, I used to like the area.
December 13, 2008 at 11:55 am |
RC Says: “Wow you guys are paranoid. Technology is being introduced that could save your stolen vehicle or even better, possibly save a child’s life and all you can do is bitch and moan about big brother.”
RC is right, everyone. It’s for the children. Can’t you see? I, for one, welcome our new camera overlords and look forward to the installation of my new Telescreen.
In fact, RC, why not just mandate that everyone be personally fitted with a GPS ankle bracelet? After all, crime would become non-existent and children would be impossible to kidnap!
December 13, 2008 at 1:29 pm |
RC, can you imagine all the crimes prevented if we had cameras pointing inside everyone’s houses! There would prevent nearly all of the crime out there. I guess since you want it so badly, you can be the first to sign up to be monitored in your home. Let me know when they put the images inside of your house online so I can watch to be sure you aren’t breaking any laws!
December 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
the cameras suck and are an infringement on peoples rights if any of you that are for the cameras can read there are some books out there about too much government the ones that come to mind first are 1984 by george orwell and atlas shrugged by ayn rand of course they are fiction but truth is isually stranger than fiction so if u need government taking part in every part of your life keep on supporting these kinds of things and soon every piece of your life will be monitered by someone else and they wont be being monitered by any one human who can make exceptions and judgement calls u will just be another cog in the machine that will be unstoppable as it tramples on all of our freedoms
December 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
dgpjr777–
It’s not about the speeding. We are no longer talking about a passive system, waiting for lawbreakers. Read the post, and read the contract posted a couple of days ago. We’re talking about tracking every vehicle that goes by, whether they’re breaking the law or not. And these records are going to be maintained for five years minimum.
So this means that within a few keystrokes, someone will be able to home in on you, personally, and track your every move in the last five years.
Do you really want to give someone the right to do that? Actually not just “someone” but a privately held for profit foreign company, which stands to make a hefty profit off the deal? Do you want to farm out traffic enforcement from the police, who are a comparatively small group of local citizens, to a multi-national corporation on the other side of the planet? What does Redflex care about if someone thousands of miles away runs a red light? Think about it. Someone, somewhere in the world, is running a red light as we speak. Do you care? Should you care? What if no one is hurt and no one is there to see it? Do you or should you care now? No– but if it’s an intersection with a Redflex camera, you’d better believe they do. You see, this isn’t about the safety, or the law or anything else. It’s about the fact that the State has a budget shortfall, and rather than cutting spending, raising taxes, or putting anything at all to a vote, they concocted this scheme. It’s a money-maker.
Unfortunately, it’s also a Pandora’s box scenario, and it’s already started. First it was the photo radar and the red light cameras. And I was OK with that. But now OCR? Facial recognition software? Tracking every vehicle? For god’s sake even if I was going to the grocery store for a quart of milk, I’d have more “security” checkpoints than if I were visiting someone in federal prison. Or if I were in prison, for that matter.
December 13, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
Oh, and one other point–
I especially do not like the way this just happened overnight, without a vote. I find it appalling that the governor’s office can do something like this and get away with it. Especially when the terms of the contract are very clear that the gov’t is not going to front any money, but (reading between the lines) will give Redflex the lion’s share of the proceeds. IF this were a legitimate plan, the state should have put it together, put it to a vote, bought the hardware and software up front, and the money should stay here in our state. Instead, the governor’s office made an end-run around us– all of us– and gave away the store in an effort to push this through without our consent.
You want cameras, fine. But let me ask you this– are you comfortable with them being foisted upon us in this manner, without a vote and with the majority of the money going to another country? If you’re all about the safety and the children, does it not enrage you that the funding isn’t there for many important issues locally? Many cities have cut or are considering cutting police and fire protection, for lack of funding– there’s a safety issue! Meanwhile the funding from this camera program, a revenue generator, is being given away.
To everyone who reads this, I say this– whether you want the cameras or not, when the petition comes out sign it so it can be put to a vote. Then we will all be given the right we should have had in the first place, the right to give a yea or nay. If it passes then it’s all legal, there’s no question, and those of us against it can just deal.
Until then, we the people have a legitimate right to be upset, if for nothing more than for the fact that we were not allowed to have a vote on the subject, as it is supposed to be done in our democratic society.
December 13, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
Show Low prob. took notice how much Star Valley was raking in from photo radar speeding tickets.
They just wanted to get into the action and start making money!
I think its just a big money making scheme.
December 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
Going back to ripping someone for saying it’s for the children huh?
I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with a device on a city street used to track criminals. You really think they have the time or resources to waist this technology on tracking down Joe Blow grabbing a gallon of milk?
And the whole argument about pointing a camera at anybody’s house who supports the cameras is just stupid. Why not go to the other extreme and try to get all ATM and Store Surveliance cameras taken down too. You can’t face those “accusers” in court either.
December 13, 2008 at 6:08 pm |
RC
have you read the contract?
December 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
RC, get a clue. This is about monitoring your personal/private life. This system will also be used to track people who are NOT criminals or breaking the law.
December 13, 2008 at 7:01 pm |
Rc, so basically you are equating someone stealing from a retailer or someone robbing an ATM with someone who is driving 10MPH over the speed limit? So how come those driving 10MPH over the speed limit aren’t being put in jail? That’s interesting that you think that someone who is distracted (possibly avoiding an accident) and misses a speed limit drop from 65 to 55 MPH is the same as someone robbing a store or ATM.
December 13, 2008 at 8:14 pm |
azcentral (pro speed cam rag) has just such an article on the above. Go forth and comment on the article.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/13/20081213speedcams1213-ON.html
December 14, 2008 at 11:33 am |
RC, the store and ATM cameras can’t indentify you because you don’t have an ID number painted on your shirt. Additionally, consumers can CHOOSE to refuse to patronize those establishments. There is not choice about driving down the highway.
December 14, 2008 at 12:21 pm |
>Going back to ripping someone for saying it’s for the children huh?
You betcha! And I stand by my previous statements.
If a significant portion of the money generated went directly to an orphanage, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, funding our understaffed CPS, water safety day, or any other children-related program, I would concede the point. But it doesn’t. Not one red cent, as far as I am aware. Not even to promote the use of bicycle helmets, or to provide an Officer Friendly visit to the school to have a talk about looking both ways before you cross the street. Nothing.
And as to directly benefitting the children by preventing speeding, red-light running, etc, if we had a rash of crazy drivers speeding through school zones and doing hit-and-runs, I would not oppose the cameras so vehemently, nor would I question anyone’s statement that it’s for the children. Why? Because it would provide a concrete verifiable benefit. It would catch someone who had perpetrated a crime against the children. But this isn’t the case. Here, when it comes to the “it’s for the children” argument, we are talking about things that “could” happen at some point in the indeterminate future, not that “did” happen.
Punishing someone who caused harm to a child and saying it’s for the children is very different than punishing someone who “could” hypothetically cause harm to them and saying the same thing. I have yet to hear anyone of the “its for the children” camp show any hard proof other than hypothetical situations.
Now, I can hear the next argument, that regardless of the above, slower is safer, and (supposedly) the cameras make it safer, and safer is better “for the children”. Again I say that any benefit this system may provide children is a side-effect and an afterthought. They aren’t the focus or the purpose of this system, and adding them into the mix only muddies the waters and detracts from the real issue.
I maintain that the use of “it’s for the children” is all too often the rallying cry of those who are trying to slip one by us, particularly when it’s in conjunction with both an attempted infringement of our rights and no actual verifiable benefit to children who actually exist outside some hypothetical scenario.
December 14, 2008 at 12:26 pm |
RC- please have a look at the comments under the pickaxe attack thread for a more in-depth post on the difference between ATM’s and this system.
December 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm |
RC- please have a look at the comments under the pickaxe attack thread for a more in-depth post on the difference between ATM’s and this system.
December 15, 2008 at 12:18 am |
Here’s a thought. All of the morons that are spending sooooo much time and energy on taking the cameras down (which won’t happen anyway) aren’t on the streets so we don’t have to worry about those idiots being on the street jeopardizing our lives. PERFECT!
You people are so lame and pathetic, LOL!
December 15, 2008 at 2:16 am |
HA, shows how out of touch with reality you are Mary. I’m checking this site and writing this on my iPhone while I am driving 120 mph down the 101 racing all the other members of this site and pissing off everyone else. It sure will be nice when they get rid of these damn cameras because when you are doing 120 these cameras just seem like a strobe light and they really are distracting me and making it hard to type.
December 15, 2008 at 9:24 am |
Mary, why do you instantly assume that anyone concerned with their rights being violated are morons? As far as your comment on taking the cameras down (which won’t happen anyway) you are only correct if everyone believes you. If everyone thought like you, government would have taken over our lives by now. Mary, if you don’t care about things like your right to face your accuser, taxation without representation, or even whether you get a ticket erroneously, then you can only be kept free by the exertions of others.
Now go be a good sheep and watch out for the farmer with velcro gloves….
December 15, 2008 at 10:59 am |
What is the matter with you people? The law says to drive at a certain speed, OBEY THE LAW!!! They are allowing you to drive 10 miles an hour over the speed limit, if you can’t live with that, then you deserve to get ticketed, whether it be by a camera or a patrol officer. Give me a break, you are such a bunch of whiners and cry babies, get a friggin life. OBEY THE LAW and you will not be punished…..SIMPLE FACT.
December 15, 2008 at 11:03 am |
Well, being in the country illegally is illegal too and you don’t see them enforcing that one at all, do you? I would think that’s a more important issue then someone driving 76 in the middle of the night. But there’s no revenue to be collected enforcing that. All they saw were dollar signs when implementing this scam to compensate for their over spending and wastefulness. Maybe they should can some of the higher paid lazy bums instead. But wait! That makes sense.. That’s government for you..
December 15, 2008 at 11:17 am |
Quit whining!!!!
Just drive the speed limit!
Most of you that are complaining drive like jackasses anyway, you deserve a ticket.
I ride a motorcycle and hope you learn by this.
If you continue to drive like an ass I WILL put a size 12 dent in your door or remove your mirror at high speed.
December 15, 2008 at 11:47 am |
Isnt this what a police officer does? Scan ALL license plates, for the vehicles that are on his APB list or other watch lists like Amber alerts?
I dont see this as anything different than what the police do now, just better / faster.
December 15, 2008 at 12:25 pm |
Big Brother Is Watching, and taking you to the bank! These things are revenue-generating, privacy-invasion devices intended to separate you from your money. It’s bad enough that they have invaded the White Mountains in Star Valley (which are stragegically placed at the edges of town in both directions), but NOW our astute City Council believes we need them HERE??? These things are a major intrusion in our right to privacy, and instead of concentrating on driving, we will now be focusing our attention on these cameras. Be vocal and voice your disdain and opposition to these cameras!!
December 15, 2008 at 12:36 pm |
This reminds me of what the U.S. did / does to 3r world countries and or the middle east – by disrupting the county and keeping a constant state of instability it kept the countries we invaded from regrouping until we were able to put in our Puppet governments – this police state that they are installing here in Arizona will eventually cause conflict and if the conflicts of robbing us of our rights and freedoms escalates to a certain point, this will only allow the Government to make further restrictions and install more elements of ” big brother ” the people must proceed quickly and efficiently in the confines of the law and legal limits to block the impending infrastructure that ” big brother ” wants to install –
The Mighty joe Lumpen has spoken
December 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm |
The Big Brother comments are hilarious… Oh, the paranoia… lol…
December 15, 2008 at 1:25 pm |
What chaps my hide is the fact that most times when i’m driving down the 10 I am going with the flow of traffic. I don’t weave in and out, I don’t do 90 or ride the bumper of other drivers, I just go with the flow. So now when we’re all doing70 we have to stopm on our breaks every gosh darn 50 ft for the cameras. That and the fact that the speed limit changes in the wierdest places is very annoying.
December 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
So – TLady – what you really have there is a problem with WHERE the cameras are, and maybe that there arent enough of them to slow people down on a consistant basis. Makes sense to me… Good Input.
December 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
Why do the detractors always focus on speed? We’re not a bunch of speed demons wanting the lanes opened up so we can do 101 on the 101. This is about protecting people’s privacy. Yours, mine and everyone elses. Sure, there will always be people willing to sacrifice their rights for the catch phrase of the day – safety, security, etc.
If you’re really concerned about safety – lets look at some things. Motorcyclists without helmets. I wonder what percentage of injury/fatal accidents they represent? Yet no helmet laws in AZ. Where’s the concern for safety? I’ll bet if a helmet law passed, half the people screaming “drive the speed limit” would start complaining about their rights being infringed on.
The last several fatal accidents I’ve read about have involved people failing to wear seatbelts. Yet I see people every day not wearing them. Where are the seatbelt cameras?
How about cell phones? Everyone thinks they drive just as well talking on one. Here’s a clue – you don’t. Distracted drivers are far worse than Bob doing 11 over the limit on a deserted freeway.
And it’s not speed that kills, it’s the differentiation in speed. It’s the 62 year old driver who b-lines to the fast lane (cutting off several vehicles – an infraction the cameras won’t catch) where they feel more comfortable driving 55 MPH. While most of us can acknowledge that driving skills decline with age, what does AZ do to monitor driving records or require skills tests regularly? My license doesn’t expire for another 30 years. A lot can happen between now and then.
December 15, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
guttersn1pe – i think you are correct on alot of fronts.
I agree that seatbelts, texting, cellphones, helmets, testing with age etc are areas that should be addressed – no question about it. That should be done in addition to the cameras. The two issues have nothing to do with one-another. Hopefully, with cameras freeing up time for officers, they will have more time to patrol safety issues such as this, and drunk driving.
the difference in speed is EXACTLY why i am a proponent of the cameras. Correctly done, it provides a deterrent for those who DO go 101 on the 101.
I still have yet to hear how this impacts privacy AT ALL… Officers can run a plate whenever they want now! Whats the difference?
December 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
Yes, but what the cameras will always miss is “context” of the situation. A camera lacks discretion, and there is a reason why we give officers the discretion to choose if they cite or not.
If the officers are now “freed-up”, what will they spend their extra time on now, busting single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lane? Just this morning, I saw them attending an accident scene directly in-front of the camera closest to my home.
You’re either a Napolitano lover or a Redflex flunkie.
December 15, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
Context – What is a good context for going too fast?
Sure – go after people who are breaking laws. If its single occupants in teh HOV, or drunk drivers, or whatever – they would be freed up to do things that only people can do.
Im neither, thanks… just a mid thirtys average guy with a young family that doesnt like dodgeing expeditions going 80+ on the 101. The 101 has changed for the better since the cameras have been put in place. I know im safer on that road – and theres only one reason why traffic has slowed.
December 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
These cameras have become one of the most divisive issues I can ever recall. On one side you have the pro-camera supporters, who seem to get some sort of satisfaction that all these “bloodlustinng murderous safety hazard” speeders will now get their just desserts by receiving violations in the mail (which don’t even have to be paid unless you get unlucky enough to be served). Almost every pro-camera comment I have read on any message board says the same thing, and that’s it’s “for safety” and “don’t break the law and you don’t have to worry”.
On the other side we have the folks who are fighting tooth and nail to show their perception on how the cameras can (and most likely will) be used for much more than speeding, after enough time has passed and we’ve become accustomed to being monitored. The technology is there, it’d be too much to ask for the government not to use it (or Redflex/ATS. Data mining on people’s travel habits would be a huge moneymaker).
Granted, some of the opposition may be upset that they have to travel slower now, but since there was never any great surge in speeding related accidents (quite the contrary, according to the latest NHTSA report. Maricopa County’s highways were safer in ‘07 than they had been in years), I can’t quqite see why their voices should be immediately discounted either.
What should really matter is giving any government or a private for-profit company the ability to track our movements without warrants or probable cause. The private business hvaing cameras inside argument doesn’t wash, because the government still has to supply a warrant to view those recordings. The old traffic cameras argument doesn’t wash because those are lo-res cameras facing one direction. We either step up now and stop these cameras on the ballot, or just kiss our freedoms goodbye as they slowly erode over the years.
December 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
Dan– you are correct in that an officer can run a plate– and on the surface there is little difference. But consider this–
An officer runs one plate at a time, when he has reasonable suspicion to do so. That bears repeating– reasonable suspicion. A camera indiscriminately runs ALL plates, regardless of suspicion. An officer cannot snap pictures of the plate, as the system will. the officer cannot snap pictures of a person’s face and run it through a facial recognition software program. An officer cannot record all data, in fact nothing is recorded and no file is built unless and until a ticket is made. The new system will record all this, whether you are guilty or not, whether there is any reasonable suspicion or not, and it will be kept on record for five years.
December 15, 2008 at 7:06 pm |
AA – werent the cameras started in 2006? Coulndt someone make the argument that 2007s safety improvement was indeed in part caused by the cameras???
Noone – An officer does run one plate at a time – but if he could go faster – dont you think he would? I do understand your point though – i just happen to not be worried about someone “tracking me” to Lowes on Sunday morning…
December 15, 2008 at 7:11 pm |
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
Information is power. The reason we are concerned is that information concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of people presents a real threat to the freedom of each and every one of us. To not be deeply concerned about the potential for misuse of information against any one individual or group is to not appreciate the lessons of history. We have very many examples of seemingly good-intentioned actions being twisted in the hands of monsters to harm the very societies they were intended to benefit.
Why does every dictator disarm his countrymen as a first step? To reduce crime and keep them safe from violence, of course. A good intention, apparently. But recall: it is a frighteningly short step from disarmed to subjugated. Review for yourself what happened in Solzhenitzin’s Soviet Union. In Hitler’s Germany. In PolPot’s Cambodia. What Uncle Joe Stalin would have done with the technologies available to him today, I cannot imagine. He did pretty well simply going with word-of-mouth!
It is concerning, too, that our fellow countrymen are not worried about the potential for abuse. I remember quite well my exposure to George Orwell and his fantastic world of 1984. The horror in his work comes from the revelation of the ease by which totalitarianism can be accomplished even in a free state when the citizenry is complacent and allows it to happen.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking that this is a little thing; that a camera that photographs a speeder is simply making us all safer and therefore it is only good. Speeding motorist: Bad. Camera catching him in the act and resulting in punishment: Good. But there is an insidious evil buried within; an evil that lies dormant, but that can be easily roused by the machinations of evil men. It has happened so many times before, in many different places and every age; surely we must be able to recognize it and stop it!
“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine
December 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm |
Ahh.. the essential liberties Ben Franklin Quote…
What Information does the computer have that isnt available to be obtained by a police officer or any other bystander? In other words, in theory, these cameras will know that i was in a public place on a certain date / time. How does this limit my freedoms?
Once i enter the public world (just like a criminal throwing away evidence in the trash on teh curb) arent i available to the public? There isnt any search of my person here…
December 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
“How does this limit my freedoms?”
I’m sure there were people saying the same thing about having a cup of tea in Boston in 1773.
December 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm |
Thanks for the non-answer.
We have representation in our government (something our tea party colonists did not) – you want to change it – get the votes for the upcoming proposition, or get yourself elected. Good luck.
December 15, 2008 at 7:58 pm |
Dan,
It isn’t that the computer has information, it’s that the potential for abuse of that information by a human is present. I can’t see how that doesn’t that worry you.
Because the thing that concerns so many of us is that with the increasing use of cameras comes the increase in the quantity and quality of the information gathered. This simply and inescapably results in the greater potential for misuse. Add to that the constantly enhancing ability to manipulate that information, that is, to store, search and retrieve it. Let’s face it, there’s a LOT of information to be gotten via camera surveillance: where you were, when, with who, or with what, what route you traveled, what you drove. Consider that if you are not the driver, information will be compiled about with those with whom you associate. Of whose business is that?
Finally, and no offense meant if I’m wrong, but you seem to have made a bit of a slightling motion in your introductory sentence…not toward me, but toward the Franklin quote…perhaps I misread the “Ahh..” as cynicism when it was true pleasure at meeting an old friend!
December 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm |
History always provides an answer.
Representation in government? Local and state? Yes. Federal? No. I don’t have enough money for my voice to be heard in Congress.
But an anti speed-trap camera proposition will pass for the simple fact that we are headed with breakneck speed into a major recession and people are going to be fed up with taxes of all kinds. Including the covert tax that these radar cameras impose as they are currently being deployed and configured. Safety takes a back seat when you can’t pay your mortgage.
December 15, 2008 at 8:09 pm |
lilgerman – im just very jaded about the use of that quote. It is often dragged out by bloggers screaming for freedom when government actually decides to enforce the laws of its society.
As much as you cant see my position, i cant understand yours – that someone in a room is gong to abuse this “information” gathered. There will be hundreds and hundreds of thousands and probably millions of passerbys that never get photographed, and never are tracked. The idea that this will lead to a big conspiracy of tracking is laughable to me.
Kevin – if people vote it out – (im not sure how they can), than i will be shocked. People generally like thier laws enforced, and dont mind if a police department gets some revenue from it. And there are ALOT of people like me who feel MUCH MUCH safer on these roads. Time will tell.
December 15, 2008 at 8:12 pm |
And its not a tax. Ive been on that road for years. No tickets that i didnt deserve.
December 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm |
It’s happened before, Dan. It’s hard to believe that Josef Stalin killed somewhere in the range of 20 million of his own countrymen…but he did. They couldn’t believe it either, but brother, it happened TWENTY MILLION times. The point is that it doesn’t take much for really bad things to happen…and that’s why we must limit government.
Read 1984 again, please…it is happening with a horrible accuracy.
December 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm |
Traffic tickets do not equal Joseph Stalin. LOLOLOL.
1984. I like Animal Farm better – but the situations dont compare. No rules are changing – only a more effective enforcement of them. You are comparing apples and oranges.
December 15, 2008 at 8:50 pm |
“..and dont mind if a police department gets some revenue from it.”
WHAT!?!?! “For-profit” law enforcement??? Fines are meant as a deterrent not a revenue generation vehicle. Taxes are for revenue generation. Theoretically, in a perfect world, there should be NO money generated through fines. It’s only in these convoluted times where it is thought reasonable to violate the constitution (our supreme law) in order to enforce local laws that we get that kind of thinking.
December 15, 2008 at 8:53 pm |
So, you are against traffic fines altogether? Thats all i was referring to.
December 15, 2008 at 8:55 pm |
Lol – are traffic fines unconstitutional? lol.. now we are getting to the root of what you want. lol.
December 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm |
lilgerman,
He must have forgot about the Law of Unintended Consequences.
December 15, 2008 at 9:02 pm |
No. Traffic fines are not but using photo radar is. It’s a violation of due process.
December 15, 2008 at 9:03 pm |
Nah… weve been through that.. You still get due process – you just dont get to argue with a cop.
December 15, 2008 at 9:22 pm |
OK, let’s get to the logical problem here. Why is it a police officer, upon seeing you violate a traffic law, can’t take your license plate number write a ticket and mail it to you but a photo radar violation can?
That, my friend, is a violation of due process and goes against every construct of our legal system which states you are innocent until proven guilty and able to face your accuser. A camera has no “civil rights” and cannot accuse you of violating civil or criminal law. A camera also cannot make contextual arguments as to the circumstances surrounding the incident and also cannot show mercy or clemency based on those circumstances. A police officer, however, can do all those things because he has civil rights. He even has you sign the document accusing you and that his assessment is agreed upon by both parties. That is not done in a photo radar incident.
December 15, 2008 at 9:28 pm |
There are two types of people in this world. Those who read 1984 as a warning, and those who read 1984 as an instruction manual. Dan must be in the latter group.
December 15, 2008 at 9:36 pm |
All the trolls, errrr traffic enforcement by photo radar fans are making such good points and arguments. You see Fraudsters, it’s not about what you think is right. It’s about what WE think is right. We’ve already won this battle. The new way that crime will be fought will be by cameras and robots. Pretty soon, we won’t need real judges anymore either. They can better serve their fellow man by sitting in front of TV screens and watch everyone’s every move. The way we see it, every person should have someone assigned to watch them at all times to make sure that they don’t break any laws. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it would really ensure that no one’s children are ever harmed by a speeder or similar insane criminals.
And all this back and forth about reasonable and prudent, human officers of the law and facing your accuser is hilarious. The point is that we don’t want you to have any oversight over us. That would make it a lot harder to keep this camera cash cow going. Don’t you paranoid criminals trust your government fully without question? Look at where they’ve taken us all, blokes. They seem pretty trustworthy to me. After all, it could be so much worse. Right??
December 15, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
the cameras are annoying i drive for work and am comfortable driving a little faster i dont get tickets or accidents i think the most dangerous are probably not the ones driving a little faster i think it is the people who get emotional while driving and dont give themselves enough room and tailgate and switch lanes when the conditions are not right like when there is lots of traffic.i dont get tickets from the cameras because i slowed down took alittle getting used to.we can get rid of the cameras by not getting tickets.no matter how many cameras there are there will still be the pissed off driver at 530 in the afternoon trying to go 50 when traffic is packed together and going 15 thats the retard that needs to get off the road
December 15, 2008 at 9:58 pm |
my wife says u are all retarded and just need to get over it
December 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm |
Opposition to these photo radars will only get stronger as time goes on and they increase the number systems in use. I believe the business model is based on a certain percentage of of traffic participants will be “caught” generating X dollars. If that’s the situation, a couple of scenarios come to mind:
Ideal case. If these things do as they are intended, the revenue from them will go down as people start to become aware of their existence and modify their driving habits. Manufacturers cannot sustain the business revenue model and the companies don’t make there profit projections and LE can’t afford to keep them operational on their own. The systems will have to be removed due to budget limitations.
Most likely case. If the above happens, the systems will have to generate revenue to keep the business model operating and that means either they start lowering the trigger speed or people start to get tickets even though they were going the correct speed. People are angered at the inaccuracy of the systems and public support wains. The other side of this coin is that the chronically inattentive drivers keep getting tickets making “pick axe” incidents more frequent which takes misdemeanor class people to the felony class. It also produces more uninsured motorists due to the high insurance cost from multiple speeding tickets. Popular opinion wains due to the burden on lower income people.
Either of the previous cases could lead to into the next scenario.
The worst case is they are used for some other law enforcement activity and that means tax money is used to keep these things “solvent”. But that takes from other programs or taxes are raised. Not popular if there is a recession going on. However, I believe the Show Low contract is a test bed for this alternative model. Homeland security picks up the bill (taxes) and the photo radar/OCG systems enter into a more insidious purpose.
I am hoping the photo radar systems get pulled as soon as possible since I fear that the second case will happen and the worst case will follow.
December 15, 2008 at 11:07 pm |
# Dan Says:
We have representation in our government (something our tea party colonists did not) – you want to change it – get the votes for the upcoming proposition…
Umm, exactly how representative is it when a major overhaul to the enforcement of our laws didn’t require us as voters to approve it first? Like the cameras or not, you have to admit they represent a huge change to the very nature of law enforcement– and we did NOT get the opportunity to do. I for one don’t feel very well-represented at all. It is only now, after a few dedicated people get together, make a website, circulate a petition, and go through all the rigamarole, that it’s looking remotely possible that we all might perhaps get what should have been our right to begin with. It’s a struggle to get what should have been ours to begin with.
But make no mistake– this is not just about the fact that this was not voted in. That’s just one piece of the puzzle. A few more pieces include:
-If I were to have an issue and either disregard their “ticket” in the mail, or am out of town and just don’t pick up my mail for a couple of days, they’ll send a process server out to serve me. Which is fine, it’s my right to be served. But they make me pay for it, too? Imagine if a policeman pulls you over, writes out a ticket, and demands payment for the honor and the privilege of being pulled over! It’s just not done that way! Again, it costs me more to have the right that should have been mine to begin with.
-Once served, I am considered guilty at that point unless I take the time and expense to attempt to prove myself innocent. I have no witnesses, and by this time it is months later and I may not even remember the day in question! We’ve covered that one pretty thoroughly, but it bears repeating- our system is built on the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and this whole system flips that on its head.
-Then of course there’s the fact that they used an unlicensed radar unit. Kind of ironic, isn’t it, that the very outfit charged with enforcing the laws actually has a checkered past in terms of compliance with them! When called on the situation, it was described as an “honest mistake.” Sure, the unit ended up being licensed shortly thereafter, but it was in flagrant violation of the law, and there’s no getting around that, “honest mistake” or not. Meanwhile if you or I made an “honest mistake” of not seeing a reduction in the speed limit (since they’ve been monkeying around with these limits so much lately), you’d better believe we’d have consequences. They have teams of engineers and lawyers, to keep them within the law, and still failed with no consequeces. We have two eyes. We fail, and, well, you know the results!
-Or, let’s see…speaking of no consequences, I’ve heard (though I cannot verify 100% the authenticity here) that Redflex employees are exempt from their cameras. Interesting, isn’t it? No consequences for them, but you and I get them….
-Or how about the folks in Ohio, who were in a funeral procession… those evil people blew right through all the red lights, and got a string of citations all along the line. Oops! Redflex forgot to think about that, that there might actually be legitimate reasons for people to go through a red light. But they fixed it, and dismissed all the tickets. How magnanimous of them! Nevermind the fact that it shows remarkable lack of foresight and planning.
-Closer to home, how about the faulty piezoelectric sensor that caused many tickets of an obviously illegitimate nature, such as a vehicle going well over its maximum capable speed. Oops again, there’s another honest mistake! But again they dismissed all charges, so it’s OK, right?
It’s a pattern. They get to do what they want how they want, and are completely willing to disregard everything, including the laws themselves to get the job done. Any mistakes that might be made in the process are minimized and have no consequences. Meanwhile you and I, the average citizens, are expected to obey all laws and be absolutely perfect OR ELSE! If we fight it, or even attempt to get what should be rightfully ours– anything other than roll over and take it– it’s on our time and our expense, without any compensation.
There is a continuing theme here, and how any thinking person can be ok with this is beyond me.
December 15, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
i hate the cameras theres way too many of them i slowed down to avoid tickets it sucks
December 15, 2008 at 11:28 pm |
># jim Says:
>December 15, 2008 at 9:58 pm
>my wife says u are all retarded and just need to get over it
Serfs.
December 16, 2008 at 8:45 am |
Nice post, No One.
I hope that when this comes to a vote that we have two options: “Cameras? Yes” or “Cameras? No” and not some in-between sort of thing like: “Cameras? Okay, only if triggered over 20 mph in excess of posted speed limit between the hours of 6am and 6pm”.
They just need to be gone.
December 16, 2008 at 9:02 am |
Dan said:
“An officer does run one plate at a time – but if he could go faster – dont you think he would?”
There is supposed to be an initial step before a cop can aim a radar device at a car. He has to have probable cause to believe you are driving at an excessive speed before clocking you. That can be as simple as his own visual estimation of speed. At the present time, an officer is not allowed to simply point his radar indiscriminately at all vehicles (at least they’ll never admit to doing it).
With photo radar, every vehicle is essentially assumed to be speeding, because each car’s speed is measured as they cross the strips. There is no probable cause to monitor them. The camera is only activated after this violation of probable cause has taken place.
You are blinded by your desire to catch “guilty people”. Are you worried about running out of them? Afraid they’ll all slip through your fingers? Try tackling an easier problem: Good -vs- evil.
I could care less about fines. I could care less about being caught speeding. But give me two things:
1) Always give me the freedom to move about assuming that I do not break the law.
2) I should always have the right to face a human accuser in court who witnessed my supposed crime, so I may ask questions of this individual.
Each one of us breaks some law every day. We all zip in and out of “crime”. Even you speed, Dan. Even you have a set tolerance for having your movements monitored. Yours is just higher than mine.
December 16, 2008 at 9:57 am |
Bravo “No One”,
That was well said.
December 16, 2008 at 1:19 pm |
And Dan, let me ask you another thing:
What if they were to place, oh, I dunno, 53 seperate measurement strips, all in very close proximity to one another, and just line up an array of cameras and flashes? Does that give them the right to issue 53 seperate citations?
All they have to do is change the “resolution” and make it higher, and they can squeeze more and more revenue. Instead of citing me every 1.5 miles on I-10 westbound, why not every inch? Why not every millimeter? I mean, there is obviously no legal limitation on how many times I can be accused of breaking the law in any given situation.
Napolitano has implemented this standard of law on her own, what is to prevent another governor from balancing the ENTIRE state budget in one week through the use of multiple camera arrays? Nothing. And that is scary.
December 16, 2008 at 1:20 pm |
I apologize. The only limitation is in how close together they can squeeze the cameras.
December 16, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
@Jim…
What else does your wife say? Did she say you could have an opinion of your OWN? You know, like for Christmas or something?
December 18, 2008 at 7:27 am |
Ok, so assuming that I went to flipaplate.com and bought a plate flipper, then assuming I went to the mall and bought an “Arizona” vanity plate background, and assuming I also went to Redflex and got about a dozen or so license plate numbers off employee cars and then assuming I got some vinyl letters and “duplicated” some of those numbers, then assuming I installed all this on my car, and assuming I was speeding through a camera zone, and assuming I pushed the button and my plate flipped to a redflex employee’s plate number…..am I guilty of speeding?
December 18, 2008 at 7:52 am |
Sounds great, but try plateflipper.com instead.
January 7, 2009 at 8:45 pm |
[...] has extensively covered the development of these invasive devices (”Show Low to Track Drivers Like Cattle” (12/12/08); “Cameras to Track Everyone, [...]
January 8, 2009 at 9:00 am |
Topic discussed here several months ago…
http://veilguy.blogspot.com/2008/11/license-plate-scanningrecognition-alprs.html
May 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
[...] cameras since its inception, including stories regarding the ambitions of ATS and Redflex to become private homeland security contractors much in the shape of Xe (formerly [...]
May 25, 2009 at 9:46 pm |
[...] has been a hot testbed for such technology, starting first when Show Low decided to track their population like tagged cattle by using Redflex scam cams. One month later, CameraFRAUD discovered the technology being secretly [...]