On: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:07:07 +0000, John Dunlop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Craig Lalley posted a link about kids "spoofing" speed cameras.  John
> Pitman mentioned they were all over Oz.
>
> In the UK, there are speed cameras "everywhere".  What's more worrying is
> that many are equipped with number plate recognition software and will
> have access to licensing databases etc.
>
> In addition, I believe they have equipped some with face recognition
> software.
>
> Where are people's Civil Rights now?
>
>

People have a limited right to privacy, but not to anonymity.  It has long
been against the laws of most (possibly all) European and Descendant
governments to wear a disguise or to mask ones features in public.  When
one ventures out in public, by the very nature of the act, one can have no
expectation of privacy with respect to ones identity or location.

There exists no right to drive an automobile on a public thoroughfare in
any jurisdiction that I am aware of.  All operators of automobiles on
public roads require a licence to exercise the "privilege" of such use. 
Said licences may be withheld by the state for any number of reasons not
having anything to do with driving, such as failure to pay child support.

It also has been a common, albeit unevenly applied, tenet of common law
that the owner of property is ultimately legally liable for its misuse. 
This is the basis of legal actions against landlords who fail to maintain
their buildings or clear ice and snow from passageways, manufactures that
sell defective products, etc.  Operating an automobile in an unsafe manner
on a public road is hardly outside the scope of such considerations and
lending it to anyone who does so exposes the owner to the same liability
as the operator.

Therefore I do not believe that the issue of anyones "civil rights"
pertains either to surveillance of their actions in public spaces or legal
liability for the misuse of an automobile registered in their name.  One
might consider both to be somewhat disconcerting, perhaps even unsavoury,
but no ones rights are being infringed.

Having said that, I believe that the growth of technological capability
with respect to surveillance and, more importantly, retention and analysis
of surveillance data requires legislative regulation.  There needs to be
explicit limits placed on what can be retained and for how long it may be
kept.  Further restraints should be placed on analysis of surveillance
data, by both public and private actors, such that it requires a warrant
to conduct and can only take place on specific records with respect to
specific acts.

-- 
***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *