March 17, 2015 at 3:23 pm
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
It seems we need to better define what it means to "witness" a crime. For example, if a city clerk manually reviewed each photo of a traffic offender, noting the car's tag number, then she could be considered a witness.Do you ever wonder if lawyers sit around the bar just thinking up more and more ridiculous ways to bilk us out of monies that should go towards more valuable things? After 17 court cases and numerous legal appeals we see the Supreme Court ruling that to "witness" is to ... unless at the time ... and cannot be construed to mean... depending on the ... and in no manor is to be considered or meant to ...
In an age of digital signatures, sexting, remoting into the office, and telephonic appearance in court, it doesn't sound like a stretch to say that someone can witness a crime digitally after the fact.
I agree, however the lawyer would say that there is no proof that the digital representation has not been altered or completely fabricated with not a shred of truth to it.
That same argument is routinely made in court regarding all types of digital evidence. Folks routinely run red lights and speed through residential neighborhoods, the city doesn't need to fabricate photos just to generate revenue. Would you show up to traffic court with a lawyer; pay a $1,000 attorney fee to hopefully beat a $100 ticket?
It would be a waste of tax payer money to have police sitting curbside watching intersections just for the occasional infractors. It makes sense to use cameras, in public areas, to deter things like reckless driving, petty theft, and vandalism.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
March 17, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
I agree, however the lawyer would say that there is no proof that the digital representation has not been altered or completely fabricated with not a shred of truth to it.That same argument is routinely made in court regarding all types of digital evidence. Folks routinely run red lights and speed through residential neighborhoods, the city doesn't need to fabricate photos just to generate revenue. Would you show up to traffic court with a lawyer; pay a $1,000 attorney fee to hopefully beat a $100 ticket?
It would be a waste of tax payer money to have police sitting curbside watching intersections just for the occasional infractors. It makes sense to use cameras, in public areas, to deter things like reckless driving, petty theft, and vandalism.
First off, you must have missed that I agreed with you. Second I still do. Thirdly, always someone wants to make a point, gets a lawyer and has it out in court. Personally, I would not, but there are many who would.
Again, I agree that it is a waste of time to do as you suggest, and that it makes sense to use modern technology, at least it does to the sane and rational. The problem is that not all are sane and rational.
🙂
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
March 17, 2015 at 4:23 pm
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
I agree, however the lawyer would say that there is no proof that the digital representation has not been altered or completely fabricated with not a shred of truth to it.That same argument is routinely made in court regarding all types of digital evidence. Folks routinely run red lights and speed through residential neighborhoods, the city doesn't need to fabricate photos just to generate revenue. Would you show up to traffic court with a lawyer; pay a $1,000 attorney fee to hopefully beat a $100 ticket?
It would be a waste of tax payer money to have police sitting curbside watching intersections just for the occasional infractors. It makes sense to use cameras, in public areas, to deter things like reckless driving, petty theft, and vandalism.
First off, you must have missed that I agreed with you. Second I still do. Thirdly, always someone wants to make a point, gets a lawyer and has it out in court. Personally, I would not, but there are many who would.
Again, I agree that it is a waste of time to do as you suggest, and that it makes sense to use modern technology, at least it does to the sane and rational. The problem is that not all are sane and rational.
🙂
With something like this, the city can't just robotically spit out a trafic fine every time someone crosses a red light. For it to work in the long run, they would need a smart algorithm that say fines those drivers who cross the red light twice within a three month period. It could also send a warning e-mail or postcard on the first offense. The algorithm could be parameter driven and dialed up or down depending on public feedback. If the city went hog wild with auto traffic fines, then residents would eventually vent their anger in the local elections and have a new city counsel pull the plug on it. That's an example of a city experimenting with data, putting it to smart use.
That's actually how automatic tolls work on a highway near where I live. It snaps a license plate photo of drivers who run though a toll booth without a proper e-pass or stopping to insert coins. It then sends them a fine in the mail, but how much that fine can be is a subject of public debate and has changed over time.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
March 18, 2015 at 1:07 am
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
Gary Varga (3/17/2015)
Part of me believes that in this century we may move to a model where ownership of data is considered "so 20th century", however, where value can be found so can ownership. Even bearing that in mind, I wholeheartedly agree that much community and citizen value can be garnered from public data repositories. They will be all the better for supporting common access platforms be it via web sites, SDKs, apps or any other means, such as data broadcasting.Let's clarify what we mean by "ownership of data"?
There is public data, as in a public park, and then there is private data, as in your home or proprietary to an organization or business. To say that all data (other than personal information) should be public, or to say that users who contribute to an organizational database are by default part owners of that database, this sounds almost Marxist.
I am not suggesting what should occur but just highlighting a perceived trend. Also, I don't expect anything to be a wholesale truth but just more or less common e.g. there was a time where most companies and a significant amount of individuals hosted their own email servers but I see that this has moved to a hosted option *in the main*.
...and, erm, no political leanings from here. Just observations and speculations.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 18, 2015 at 1:12 am
The Fault (3/17/2015)
Gary Varga (3/17/2015)
Part of me believes that in this century we may move to a model where ownership of data is considered "so 20th century"I'd tend to disagree, I think retaining ownership of data is becoming more important all the time what with fraudsters, card cloning, identity theft, personal photo's being published or re-used for commercial purposes without permission etc. All these activities seem to be on the rise...
The other half of my sentence quoted above is:
Gary Varga (3/17/2015)
however, where value can be found so can ownership.
These are examples of the value I was referring to.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 18, 2015 at 1:20 am
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
Eric M Russell (3/17/2015)
Miles Neale (3/17/2015)
I agree, however the lawyer would say that there is no proof that the digital representation has not been altered or completely fabricated with not a shred of truth to it.That same argument is routinely made in court regarding all types of digital evidence. Folks routinely run red lights and speed through residential neighborhoods, the city doesn't need to fabricate photos just to generate revenue. Would you show up to traffic court with a lawyer; pay a $1,000 attorney fee to hopefully beat a $100 ticket?
It would be a waste of tax payer money to have police sitting curbside watching intersections just for the occasional infractors. It makes sense to use cameras, in public areas, to deter things like reckless driving, petty theft, and vandalism.
First off, you must have missed that I agreed with you. Second I still do. Thirdly, always someone wants to make a point, gets a lawyer and has it out in court. Personally, I would not, but there are many who would.
Again, I agree that it is a waste of time to do as you suggest, and that it makes sense to use modern technology, at least it does to the sane and rational. The problem is that not all are sane and rational.
🙂
With something like this, the city can't just robotically spit out a trafic fine every time someone crosses a red light. For it to work in the long run, they would need a smart algorithm that say fines those drivers who cross the red light twice within a three month period. It could also send a warning e-mail or postcard on the first offense. The algorithm could be parameter driven and dialed up or down depending on public feedback. If the city went hog wild with auto traffic fines, then residents would eventually vent their anger in the local elections and have a new city counsel pull the plug on it. That's an example of a city experimenting with data, putting it to smart use.
That's actually how automatic tolls work on a highway near where I live. It snaps a license plate photo of drivers who run though a toll booth without a proper e-pass or stopping to insert coins. It then sends them a fine in the mail, but how much that fine can be is a subject of public debate and has changed over time.
One of the problems with automated systems is that they tend to be unable to take circumstances into consideration e.g. what if there was an ambulance behind unable to get through without you crossing the line to move out of the way and thereby getting caught on camera?
The whole witness in person issue (obviously you guys are talking US law) is a tricky one but until the vagaries of it are dealt with then I should imagine that the status quo will remain.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 23, 2015 at 11:40 am
Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply