New speed cameras?

Derivative

x12yhp wrote: »

But again and again you are ignoring policing. If you are not allowed to investigate someone, unless you know they are guilty, how do you find out if they are guilty?!

The conclusion to your line of thought is simply to do away with policing as we know it. There is no good way of catching criminals if innocent people all refuse to help. It is even worse when innocent people actually come out and say that they would rather there be murderers on the street than let the police try and keep them behind bars.

There is a difference between investigating individuals, and having every member of the public be a suspect for a crime (which doesn't yet exist).

If having the police near enough know your location at any time (provided you drive) is fine, what else do you consider fine?

Photo recognition CCTV so they can follow your person everywhere? So the Government potentially know you went to the shops last night at 2am, that you went to a strip club the other week, that you go to the betting shop every now and then?

Camera inside your house to make sure nothing illegal's going down? Would help them somewhat with investigations to know where you hide things about the house.

If no to either of the above, why not?

This is the issue - you simply draw the line as to how much the state should intrude on your personal life a little closer than I do.

We have the concept of "reasonable suspicion" under the law. Reasonable suspicion does not include "drives on a road, ever".

My comment on murderers going free does not mean I am against police investigation. I am against police investigation on a mass scale - "guilty until proven innocent", as it were.

NAR

But every member of the public IS a potential suspect for a crime. So anything, such as a camera, that can potentially identify or eliminate a suspect has to be welcomed IMHO.
Sorry EdgEy, but I don't think I want you in my society either - you obviously have stuff to hide!

Derivative

NAR wrote: »

But every member of the public IS a potential suspect for a crime. So anything, such as a camera, that can potentially identify or eliminate a suspect has to be welcomed IMHO.

Great - we'll get on installing those cameras in your home then. Nothing to hide.

In this situation there isn't even a crime to be suspected of. You're essentially saying that you have reasonable suspicion to believe any person on the street is a criminal. For some crime... wait, we still don't have one yet. Oh well, we'll just assume they're guilty and figure out what to pin on them later.

A lovely "society" you have in mind there, eh.

Where you would draw the line on intrusion into your private life? Tell me just how much information you'd be comfortable with the police gathering from you without your knowledge or consent.

Fergie76

Wrong Board. Post deleted.

NAR

EdgEy wrote: »

Great - we'll get on installing those cameras in your home then. Nothing to hide.

What has that got to do with this thread, which relates to cameras on roads?

Tell me just how much information you'd be comfortable with the police gathering from you without your knowledge or consent.

This is a Northern Ireland Board and believe you me that the PSNI have far more information stored on the citizens here, than any other police force in any other part of the UK has on their citizens.
Does this bother me - well no because I do my best to be not involved in anything illegal.
If my DNA was requested to eliminate me from a crime investigation, again I would have no issue with this - why should anybody who has not committed crime?

Derivative

NAR wrote: »

What has that got to do with this thread, which relates to cameras on roads?

"anything, such as a camera, that can potentially identify or eliminate a suspect has to be welcomed IMHO." is a direct quote from you.

If this is only referring to these cameras, in this situation, fair enough. I can see how ANPR can be useful, though I personally see it as a step too far.

My issue is with the viewpoint that "anything" is worth doing if it stops criminals. To the point where the Police (which generally means, a member of society, another human being) can have a record of everything you do.

The crime aspect is a distraction from my point. I have an issue with the Government tracking my movements because I am an innocent person, because the Government work for me, and because I do not want any person besides myself to have that level of detail on my life.

I am asking where, you personally, would draw the line, out of interest.

NAR

EdgEy wrote: »

My issue is with the viewpoint that "anything" is worth doing if it stops criminals. To the point where the Police (which generally means, a member of society, another human being) can have a record of everything you do.

It is the Police Force, not the Police Person that holds the information - there is a difference! And I know of several instances of Police Officers ending up in court for interrogating the police computers unlawfully ie for personal reaons not associated with any cases they were working on. And quite correct too.

The crime aspect is a distraction from my point. I have an issue with the Government tracking my movements because I am an innocent person, because the Government work for me, and because I do not want any person besides myself to have that level of detail on my life.

From when you are born to when you die all manner of central government, local government and health services hold data on you. All manner of travel data is held, the list is endless.

I am asking where, you personally, would draw the line, out of interest.

Probably my 4 walls; what goes on in my house is my business, which I think everyone would want. Nearly all premises you enter nowadays are covered by CCTV, so big brother is potentially watching you nearly everywhere else.

Derivative

NAR wrote: »

Probably my 4 walls; what goes on in my house is my business, which I think everyone would want. Nearly all premises you enter nowadays are covered by CCTV, so big brother is potentially watching you nearly everywhere else.

Fair enough.
I would ask you to remember not everyone shares your viewpoint though.
And statements like "I don't want you in my society" simply because I prefer to be monitored a little less than you strike me as rather, well, nasty.

Government having information on my address is fair enough. There's not much you can really do with that to be honest, besides maybe come and have a chat with me.

I don't mind having CCTV outside a pub, it can spot a fight and determine who is at fault, for example.

To me there is a difference between CCTV being used at crime hotspots to identify criminals (I do bloody wish they'd get HD cameras... how often do you see "can you recognize this white rectangle" on crimewatch) and being actively tracked, which is made incredibly easy by ANPR cameras.

I see it as rather silly to give up rights and freedoms for the sake of well, what is a relatively rare occurrence. It's similar to the whole "no liquids on a plane" debacle, when even including terrorist attacks travelling by jet is the safest way to get from A to B by far.

x12yhp

There is actually a very noteworthy difference between these situations. One is 'in public', the other is 'private'. These are not my own definitions but they are legal definitions.

No one is asking to install cameras in a private area, we are talking about public areas. If the government is willing to give me a nice house for free, I am quite happy if they put up a camera or two to make sure that there is nothing bizarre going on!

In any case this is now being argued off as a triviality yet someone earlier was more than happy to have our free society consisting of many hundreds of murderers (in just NI alone). That is not at all trivial. And I bet those who are so keen on their freedom to 'hide nothing' would be a little bit less mouthy if your husband or wife was killed by a car bomb or raped by a known sex offender. And I know that there is no dead cert that it might be prevented but this is a game of statistics and trends. Being able to track bad people WILL make it easier to stop them and to catch them.

This is NI and you are either very naive to think that a secretive life is not suspicious or you are very forgetful of what has gone on in the recent past.

ps. I should point out that I very rarely agree with NAR. So you have two people with very differing views who are totally disagreeing with you. It will not just be 1 in a thousand who considers you suspicious...

Derivative

"suspicious" "A secretive life" "track bad people"

As you continue to completely ignore my point that these cameras track EVERYONE and instead choose to focus on a tiny minority of criminals, I'll refrain from posting more.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Even in a public place, an innocent man has the right to not be followed, not have the presumption of guilt on his back at all times.