Speed Cameras and So-Called "Intellectual Property"

One may not think that concerns over speed cameras can be associated with the inappropriate protection of so-called "intellectual property", but they can. The association is the implementation of "automated" justice.

A Washington Times editorial on speed cameras writes: "The editorial writes: "Traditional law-enforcement duties are best performed by men, not machines. This is the case in Maryland, where speed cameras continue to pronounce the innocent guilty, regardless of mounting evidence that the measuring devices are faulty.  ... In a May 24 letter, Mr. Warrington explained his interest in addressing reliability problems was not ensuring justice but “how we can optimize the productivity of our camera.”" (emphasis added)

Concerning the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) Larry Downes wrote in CNET that: "It creates vague, sweeping new standards for secondary liability, drafted to ensure maximum litigation. It treats all U.S. consumers as guilty until proven innocent. If passed, the bill would give media companies unprecedented new powers to shape the structure and content of the Internet.... He argues that SOPA effectively introduces new monitoring requirements for all websites that allow user content, even comments posted to blogs. Rightsholders, Sohn wrote, need only "a good faith belief that a Web site is 'avoiding confirming' infringement, and they can demand that payment systems and advertising networks cease doing business with the Web site.""

Like the speed camera silently monitoring traffic, the ISPs are under ever increasing pressure to monitor (spy on) user traffic for the sole purpose of maximizing some entity's assertion for profit, not for ensuring justice. Furthermore, the concept of "due process" is being diminished through the imposition of "automated" justice.

Do Nothing Obama

The Washington Post recently carried this headline: "Obama urges supercommittee leaders to reach deal; warns against undoing consequences of failing to reach accord".  This headline re-emphasizes that Obama's rhetoric is nothing more than smoke-and -mirrors for misleading the citizens.  Obama himself, has purposely avoided making the tough decisions he is supposed to be making as President.

Recently, Obama delayed making a decision on the Keystone Pipeline. "Keystone pipeline delayed by Obama until 2013".  The issue isn't whether you agree or disagree with the pipeline, but the fact that Obama demands that others make a decision when he himself refuses to do so.

Obama eloquently speaks of solving or deficit spending.  As part of that theme, he demands that the supercommittee reach a decision. Well a supercommitte (The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform)  made recommendations back in February 2010. Obama promptly ignored the recommendations of the prior committee.

One of Obama's soundbites is "We Can't wait on Congress, the time to act is now". If Obama calls on others to reach decisions, he must make decisions too.

Plus One For Microsoft

I have been highly critical of Microsoft concerning the proprietary nature of Windows and the evolution of Windows into a corporate product to be managed by computer professionals rather than as a hobbyist operating system. Well, I just bought a new computer with Windows 7, and much to my surprise the upgrade has gone relatively well. So plus one for Microsoft.

Specifically, based on prior concerns with Windows XP and reading various posts. I anticipated issues with Windows 7 not recognizing other computers on my home network and not connecting to the printer. Both these concerns turned out to be non-issues.

Go - Ron Paul

I do not support everything Ron Paul is proposing. I am pro-environment and I support regulations that protect the consumer from corporate abuses. I would not support the elimination of the Department of Commerce or the Department of the Interior.  I would support the elimination of government programs that are based on collecting revenues at the local level, transferring them to Washington, only to redistribute the money back to the local level. That is wasteful. The selling of government assets and the privatization of some government services would be a major mistake that I won't expound upon at this time. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be eliminated.

Well, I am pleased to see that that Ron Paul has made graphs that summarize his proposals.  Obama speaks eloquently, vaguely, and misleadingly about reducing the national debt. Obama, from what I have seen has yet to produce any graph summarizing how his proposed spending would achieve real deficit reduction.  Obama is playing "smoke and mirrors". All that Obama seems to have proposed are reductions to proposed deficit spending falsely claiming that he is reducing the deficit. Spending will still exceed revenues. That is not deficit reduction.

Ron Paul, when interviewed before the camera gives a much better presentation than he does at the Republican debates.  I would even conjecture that the debate moderators have bee working "around" Paul to focus on other candidates such as Romney.

Nevertheless, Ron Paul deserves the chance to be elected president.




Washington Post article: Ron Paul puts out ‘Plan to Restore America’
Ron Paul Website: Ron Paul Announces Ambitious ‘Plan to Restore America’
Cato Institute: Ron Paul’s ‘Plan to Restore America’

Are Cameras the New Guns?

A growing concern has been the increased assertion by law enforcement that they have the ability to arrest people who are filming them, even in public places. This flies in the face all logic. Why should the police be able to film and tract someone for the purpose of collecting evidence to prosecute that individual, yet individuals are not allowed to similarly collect evidence that my exonerate them and/or demonstrate the use of abusive police tactics. This would seem to violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution.

We supposedly live in a free society that is based on the rule of law where government is supposed to be transparent. The police should not have the ability to arbitrarily arrest members of the public for recording  police under the guise of "obstructing law enforcement". If police can arbitrarily arrest people for vague assertions of  "obstructing law enforcement" we now become a police state.

The title for this post "Are Cameras the New Guns?" came from Gizmodo.  I ran across this article in following links at the POI Factory which had several articles concerning increased tracking of people through GPS devices. My recent post OnStar and the Outer Limit reviews this concern. Below are (revised) excerpts of my comments at the POI factory.

In the article "Are Cameras the New Guns?" Gizmodo writes:  "In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. .... The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. ..."

To me, it is unfortunate that Gizmodo uses the word "illegal" as if the action of recording is actually illegal and second that Gizmodo has not challenged the supposed legality.  Furthermore, the issue before the public media seems to "privacy",  As I have previously expressed; privacy is "dead" and the arguments opposing the supposed "illegality" should be based on the First and Fourth Amendments.

Particularly egregious is the phrase "obstructing law enforcement". So it is legal for law enforcement to obtain evidence documenting your actions by recording you, but it is illegal for you to have evidence obtained by recording the police that might document your innocence and/or illegal police behavior?!?!?!

Below are some recent headlines highlighting the trend towards the US becoming a police state.

CA Governor Lets Police Search Your Smartphones At Traffic Stops

Guy Arrested, Threatened With 15 Years For Recording Traffic Stop In Illinois

Does The NYPD Really Think That Shooting Photos/Videos Of Protests Is 'Disorderly Conduct?'

Special Segment: Felony Eavesdropping

9th court of appeals rules it's okay for government to implant GPS on your car to track you without court order

Since posting I remembered this one.
Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'

Law enforcement is necessary to protect society from those committing crimes. The police do not have a right, especially in public places, to criminalize people so that the police can "hide" their actions from the "sunshine" of transparent government. When the police can arrest you for filming their actions to "hide" the truth, then we have descended into a police state. In the movie "V" there is a very prophetic quote: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."