Taking on the Government

Baltimore Scameras USELESS at stopping dangeorus illegal dirt bike riders!

What a Traffic camera cannot stop.  Illegal Dirt Bike riders.

Traffic Cameras do NOT pull over dangerous drivers.  They never do.  All they do is send a bill.

In this case, you are dealing with Dirt bikes that HAVE NO PLATES.

YOU NEED REAL POLICE OFFICERS PULLING OVER DRIVERS acting unsafe, NOT mailing bills on petty violations.

Read here and ask yourself, would a traffic camera ever have stopped these criminals????

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/police-hope-crack-down-illegal-dirt-bikes-city-19038.shtml?wap=0#.UW-lDleHeSo

Police Hope to Crack Down on Illegal Dirt Bikes in the City

Updated: Wednesday, April 17 2013, 10:51 PM EDT

Baltimore City Police are asking for the public’s help to crack down on illegal dirt bikes.

For years, police have had trouble cracking down on illegal dirt bikes and have been searching for a solution.

Police are now hoping that citizens will help. They are asking citizens to anonymously report any stored dirt bikes that may be illegal.
Confiscated bikes will be taken to the city yard to be destroyed unless the owner can provide legitimate paper work.

Investigators say where dirt bikes go, violence usually follows. Just this Sunday, a 16-year-old riding a bike on North Ellamont was shot in the head.

“We do have shootings or homicides because of these dirt bikes, it’s a menace and we need to take some type of action," said Major Johnny Delgado.

The email to report dirt bikes is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Iowa City Traffic Cam petition just short due to signatures deemed invalid.  Only 400 more needed

http://thegazette.com/2013/04/15/petition-on-iowa-city-traffic-camera-drones-invalid-city-clerk-says/

Petition on Iowa City traffic camera, drones invalid, city clerk says
More than 1,000 submitted signatures deemed invalid

The effort to ban traffic-enforcement cameras and drones in Iowa City hit a roadblock Monday, but opponents of those devices have one more chance.

The City Clerk’s Office said not enough eligible people signed a petition that would force the City Council to either adopt an ordinance outlawing red-light and speed cameras and drones or to send the matter to voters to decide.

The petition needed to be signed by at least 2,500 registered Iowa City voters. Organizers submitted 3,322 signatures April 1 http://thegazette.com/2013/04/01/petition-filed-on-iowa-city-traffic-cameras-questions-remain/, but City Clerk Marian Karr said Monday that only 2,106 were valid

Petitioners have two days after receiving a mailed certificate of insufficiency from the city to declare their intent to get more signatures, and then they would have 15 more days to try to get enough people to sign the petition.

One of the petition organizers said that notice would be given this afternoon.

“We think we can make up the difference easily,” said Aleksey Gurtovoy of Iowa City.

He and Martha Hampel of Iowa City led the petition drive over the past six months http://thegazette.com/2013/02/21/iowa-city-residents-continue-effort-to-ban-traffic-cameras/. Gurtovoy said getting signatures from 2,500 registered voters, as opposed to eligible voters, was a tough task during the winter.

They object to an ordinance adopted by a divided City Council a year ago that allows traffic-enforcement cameras in Iowa City.

No cameras are installed yet, however, and none are likely to be for a year as the city waits for the creation of state rules on using the cameras on state routes like many of the in-town streets where Iowa City wants to put them

The ordinance proposed in the petition would ban traffic-enforcement cameras, drones and automatic license-plate recognition systems. The City Council has only considered red-light cameras.

Traffic-enforcement cameras have been ruled constitutional by the Iowa Supreme Court and are operating in several Iowa communities, including Cedar Rapids. But their use has been controversial, with critics doubting the safety benefits and saying the true motivation behind them is the collection of traffic fines.

Backers, though, including Cedar Rapids police officials, say data support safety-improvement claims. 

(Ban the Cams note:  WE have seen even GOVERMENENTS manipulate data to say scameras work.  British Medical Journal discovered blantant underreporting in the UK.  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2913.asp 

Quote:  UK Department for Transport reports threefold undercount of road accidents during the speed camera era.

On top of that the vendors have been known to "help" do reports In Denver, ACS is acutally "writing" the "report" on the city own traffic scamera.  Even the Denver paper was critical of this.  http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19580844

To say that ACS has a direct financial stake in demonstrating that photo radar enhances public safety should be self-evident. How could such a study possibly be accepted as a dispassionate portrayal of the facts when so much is on the line for those who are conducting it?"

Nevermind that the scamera side never really likes to mention what the underlying primary cause of accidents.  This occured in Wiltshire, UK  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/538.asp

"I would very much like to hear the Camera Partnership explain exactly how it is supposed to be possible that their cameras reduced crashes by over sixty percent when only about four percent of crashes involved exceeding a speed limit," Smith said. "It does not make sense."

But the truth is something the scamera side doesn't like to tell when it gets in the way of the scam).

Even with a successful Iowa City petition, the question of whether an initiative or a referendum was being sought would still need to be answered.

The petition organizers, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa http://thegazette.com/2012/10/05/effort-to-ban-red-light-cameras-in-city-draws-aclu-support/, said they were seeking an initiative by proposing a measure for the City Council to consider. But City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes has characterized it as a referendum that asks the council to reconsider an existing law. A referendum petition must be filed within 60 days of the adoption of the measure in question or not until two years after adoption. The current petition would fall between those periods and not be timely.

Dilkes has said she would re-examine the matter with a successful petition. She said Monday that if a petition is deemed sufficient, she would provide a formal opinion to the council.

Gary Biller NMA president at Iowa City, IA meeting on Traffic Surveillance and Drones

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151388599200954&set=o.394825343908343&type=2&theater

Jill Nob

Ban Traffic Cameras and Drones In Iowa City

Gary Biller, National Motorist Association President's opening remarks at the Public Forum on Traffic Surveillance and Drones. 3.28.13 Iowa City, Iowa

Murfreesboro, TN RLC crashes gone up.  Murfreesboro CAPE tells county.

Citizens Against Photo Enforcement

Here is Axl representing C.A.P.E., speaking to the Rutherford County Commission Meeting last night. You might have to pause it a few times to catch up... he's nervous, and a Yankee, so he's talking pretty fast. :)

Ban the Cams note:  Axl did a wonder job.  Unlike the scamera side who pays slick lobbyist to speak.

Axl was an honest citizen, and we need more people like Axl to help speak up!

Thank you Axl on your hard.

YOU DID GREAT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aTaKlAdlX6s#at=987

The Time is at 16:29

https://www.facebook.com/MurfreesboroCAPE?ref=stream

Murfreesboro CAPE: Citizens Against Photo Enforcement to speak against RLC tonight at 6:00 pm (CST)

Murfreesboro CAPE: Citizens Against Photo Enforcement

Axl David of C.A.P.E. will be addressing the Rutherford County Commission at 6:00pm tonight. Although Rutherford County has no involvement in Murfreesboro's red light camera program, the intention is to raise awareness and hopefully influence the county to put pressure on the city's councilmembers. If you're bored, it will be broadcast live on RCTV (Comcast Ch. 19), or streamed to http://www.rutherfordcountytn.gov/rctv_live.htm (although it's currently down for maintenance).

 

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20130410/OPINION04/304100017/Ohio-should-outlaw-red-light-cameras?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

Ohio should outlaw red light cameras

Apr 10, 2013

Written by
Ohio Rep. Ron Hood

Most drivers consider them a nuisance, but the use of red light and speed cameras also raises serious concerns regarding public safety and our Constitution. Nine other states have already banned the use of red-light cameras and 12 have outlawed cameras used for speeding violations.

House Bill 69, a bill being considered in the Ohio House of Representatives, would prohibit municipal corporations, counties, townships and the State Highway Patrol from using traffic law photo-monitoring devices in Ohio. The ban would apply to cameras monitoring both speed and traffic lights.

I do not believe this is an issue that divides the two political parties. Of the two original cosponsors of the bill, one was a Republican, the other a Democrat. Because I support the mission of the legislation, I have also signed on as a cosponsor.

The right to due process, which is explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, has been a cornerstone of our legal system since our nation’s founding. But as is too often the case with red-light cameras, drivers are presumed guilty and then are forced to prove their innocence. Furthermore, drivers who are cited by traffic cameras are unable to face their accuser.

Traffic cameras have not produced positive results from a public safety standpoint either. A February Wall Street Journal article cited conflicting data for red light camera safety results. It reported that “Los Angeles, Philadelphia and St. Petersburg, Fla. have found that crashes increased at intersections where cameras are installed.”

Several other studies have shown an increase in rear-end accidents at intersections, in some cases by as much as 54 percent. A 2004 study conducted by North Carolina A&T University stated: “Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections.”

Voters in Heath, banned red light cameras in 2009. They were initially installed to reduce accidents. In the first month after being installed, though, 10 traffic robots monitoring six intersections resulted in the issuance of more than 12,500 tickets. That averaged out to more than three tickets per household — just in the first month!

That illustrates another unfortunate reality: traffic cameras often are installed as a money-grab for local governments. The primary purpose of issuing fines should be to punish people who violate the law, not as a source of revenue.

Rep. Hood may be reached by calling 614-466-1464, emailing This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , or writing to State Representative Ron Hood, 77 S. High St., Columbus, Ohio 43215.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/8/grounding-the-drones/

EDITORIAL: Grounding the drones
Iowa City gets a vote on banning airborne spies

It’s easy to throw in the towel when government policies get out of hand. Politicians have succeeded in driving the myth that you can’t beat City Hall, which makes it easier to impose unpopular laws and ordinances without the views of the unwashed masses getting in their way.

Not everyone buys into the myth. A diverse coalition of activists, from the College Republicans and Young Americans for Liberty on one hand to the liberals at the American Civil Liberties Union on the other are turning to the ballot box in Iowa City, Iowa, to put an end to the city’s dream of universal surveillance.

Iowa is at the center of a growing public scrutiny of drones. The Iowa Air National Guard base at Des Moines is the control center for a squadron of MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft, like those used to kill al Qaeda terrorists and other targeted terrorists in Afghanistan. Drone manufacturers have flocked to the state to set up shop in communities like Cedar Rapids.

Last week, Iowa City’s drone opponents turned in more than 3,300 signatures on a petition (only 2,500 were needed) calling for a referendum to ban spy technologies, including drones, red-light cameras, speeding cameras and license plate readers. “Our city’s motto is ‘Big city choices, small town atmosphere,” Martha Hampel, a petition sponsor, tells The Washington Times. “We don’t feel like Iowa City should be a testing ground for this kind of surveillance.”

Bureaucrats often buy the latest technology simply because they can, not because it’s needed — especially when someone else is paying for it. The Department of Homeland Security has eagerly dished out grants to encourage small-town police departments to load up on revenue cameras and drones.

Stop Big Brother, the group behind the initiative, says it’s inevitable that those who control the drones will give in to the temptation to misuse them. A drone’s powerful cameras might be used to look for a missing child or track down a notorious criminal, or in a small town with little crime the drone operators might be tempted to see what’s happening in a backyard or into a bedroom with an open window to see what’s none of their business.

Iowa City’s leaders have demonstrated their interest in spy cameras by starting the search for a private company to write red-light tickets in the name of safety. Organizers of the campaign to ban the revenue cameras point out that if the city council really cared about reducing traffic accidents it would paint crosswalks on the streets downtown, making it less likely pedestrians will be hit by cars. City officials refuse to do so because they think it would make the quaint, brick-lined streets look unattractive. Aesthetics trump safety.

Money also trumps safety. It’s obvious cities want a piece of the photo-ticketing scam. In the District of Columbia, for example, the revenue cameras earned $79 million last year. The drones won’t be far behind. Washingtonians could learn a lesson or two from Iowa City residents.

The Washington Times

How to Lie with Statistics- Delaware Style ("nearly equal time periods, RLV crashes increased")

http://retiredpublicsafety.com/wp/howm-to-lie-with-statistics-delaware-style/

How to Lie with Statistics- Delaware Style

This morning in my email alerts, I found the following news story out of Delaware.

Route 1 cameras reduce red-light running; accidents down slightly http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/cameras-cut-down-running-red-lights-not-so-much-accidents/976675

Here’s the part of the story that deals with red light violation traffic (RLV) crashes- something I was initially surprised to see reported in actual numbers, but after reading the details it came as no surprise.

Traffic cameras at two Route 1 intersections appear to have reduced accidents, and transportation officials say fewer drivers run red lights.

“The cameras located at Route 1/Old Landing Road and Route 1/Munchy Branch Road have done what we had expected; they have changed driver behavior and thereby reduced crashes – and potentially saved lives,” said Dawn Hopkins, intergovernmental policy advisor for DelDOT.

The Delaware Department of Transportation installed cameras in 2010 after using five years of data to determine the two intersections were candidates for the Electronic Red Light Safety Program, Hopkins said. In the five years from 2002 to 2007, there were four crashes a year at the Munchy Branch intersection and about two crashes a year at Old Landing Road.

At Old Landing Road, only one crash a year occurred from 2007 to 2010, but from 2010 to 2012, the average rose to more than one a year.

At Munchy Branch Road, after cameras were installed there has been an average of  two accidents a year.

Hopkins said there is a normal ebb and flow of crashes throughout the state, with fewer accidents during periods of recession because people drive less. However, the overall trends indicate fewer crashes have resulted from running red lights when compared to the initial data.

Here is my analysis of this story, using only the text of the story.

Unequal time periods and omitted data
Note the terms “2002 to 2007″ for pre-device and 2010 to 2012″ for post-device. Since “to” not “through” was used, this excludes the last year listed, so for example, 2010 to 2012 includes 2010 and 2011, but not 2012. This means there were a total of eight years of data available pre-device (2002 THROUGH 2009), but only 2002 THROUGH 2006 was used. What happened in 2007, 2008, and 2009? To find out, keep reading.

For nearly equal time periods, RLV crashes increased- but how much?
In one section, for the Old Landing intersection, three years pre-device (2007 THROUGH 2009) is used, and two years post-device (2010 and 2011) is used. What happened when we included the missing 2007, 2008, and 209 data? RLV crashes increased! They were an average of one/year pre-device, but post-device the average was “more than one a year”. Two is more than one, as is ten. What is the number?

The recession
What is another factor here in omitting post 2006 data? The recession that began in this time frame. The story accurately noted in a recension people drive less. What ends up is the state is using a time when people did more driving (2002 through 2006) and compared it to a period when they did less driving (2010 and 2011).

Contrast this state study with the 2012 Florida red light camera study. As I noted in my analysis http://retiredpublicsafety.com/documents/rlc/DHSMV_2012_RLC_Analysis.pdf, no red light violation crashes were listed, no numerical crash data was listed, and 20 to 30% of the agencies required by law to submit crash data failed to do so. Yet this “analysis” is quoted far and wide by the media, which just as the Delaware paper above never questioned anything about it.

The bottom line- revenue
The last line of the story prior to it talking about the new vendor was this:
That said, the potential revenue is significant – nearly $1 million in tickets issued so far through 2012.

Unlike crashes, revenue is rarely misreported.

The fact is once government becomes involved in a for-profit scheme using a core function such as law enforcement, we cannot trust anything the government says about this function. I’ll paraphrase Mr. Reagan and say do NOT trust, and most certainly verify- if you can find the data.

The solution here is at least threefold-

1. The most difficult thing is educating the public on the issue, although most people can see these devices for what they are.This is where the support (both in calls, dollars, and votes) for the following steps must come from.

2. We must lobby for and pass laws such as the Motorist Rights Act and proper yellow light timing, if not an outright ban on the devices- but the latter is far more difficult to do as we’ve seen here.

3. We must oust politicians that vote against our rights. This includes local officials that vote to use automated for-profit enforcement and those at the state level that vote to protect or extend it.
 

NMA E-Newsletter #221: Administrative Hearings Deny Motorists Due Process

Photo ticket profiteers will stop at nothing to discourage motorists from fighting and beating unfair camera tickets. Their latest ploy comes in the form of California Assembly Bill 666 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_666_bill_20130319_amended_asm_v98.html, which would require ticket camera cases to be heard in administrative hearings, not in real courts of law.
 
This change would effectively deny motorists key due process rights (such as the right to discovery and to confront witnesses) and further stack the deck in favor of those who benefit from camera revenue. For more information on the insidious nature of administrative hearings, check out E-newsletter #219: Resistance is not Futile.  http://alerts.motorists.org/nma-e-newsletter-219-resistance-is-not-futile
 
To illustrate the true impact of a bill like AB 666, let’s look at what can happen when a camera-ticket recipient exercises his due process rights in a court of law.
 
Gant Bloom received a red-light camera ticket in St. Louis and decided to defend himself in court. He did not deny that the image of his car had been captured by the ticket camera, but because he did not receive the ticket until several weeks later, he could not honestly determine whether he or his girlfriend was driving the car at the time.
 
Bloom’s opening statement included a summary of his strategy: “I decided it just wasn’t fair for me to admit guilt to something I didn’t even know if I did or not. The only physical evidence that the prosecution is going to show you is that it was my car running through a red light. That I don’t deny. I don’t believe the City can satisfy this court that it was me who committed that crime. And furthermore, I intend to demonstrate reasonable doubt that it was me driving that day.”
 
Bloom’s girlfriend testified that the two of them had conferred and could not determine who was driving at the time of the alleged violation. The prosecuting attorney spent several minutes questioning a representative of American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and the local police officer who reviewed the citation to establish a foundation for what the photo evidence proved, in addition to how that evidence was collected, reviewed, and ultimately resulted in a ticket. In contrast, Bloom, who isn’t an attorney, asked only one question of the ATS employee and three questions of the officer.
 
His logic was elegant and simple, and points out the fallacy of red-light cameras as a fair means of enforcing intersection traffic regulations.
 
Bloom asked the ATS employee, “Sir, is there any way (for the cameras) to tell who was driving the car at the time of the violation?” The answer was, “No, there isn’t.”
 
Bloom then asked the police officer if he would attempt to identify the driver during an in-person traffic stop for running a red light. The answer was affirmative.
 
Next Bloom asked if the officer would issue a ticket if he wasn’t able to identify the driver. The officer responded, “No, if I couldn’t identify the driver, I wouldn’t issue a ticket.”
 
Blooms’ final question for the officer: “If you pulled a car over and found out it was a different driver than who was the registered owner of the car, would you issue a citation to the car, to the registered owner who is not driving, or would you issue the citation to whoever was driving the car?” The answer, of course, from the officer was that he would ticket the driver.
 
The judge found in favor of Bloom and charged court costs to the City of St. Louis. For an entertaining read, you can find the full courtroom transcript at www.tinyurl.com/camtranscript.
 
Bloom’s defense and the judge’s decision drew the critical distinction between a presumption of innocence and a presumption of guilt. Bloom prevailed in a court of justice, something that would not have been possible in an administrative hearing where those pesky due process rights are routinely quashed.
 
In California alone there are thousands of motorists charged with unfair traffic violations who, for now, have the opportunity to defend themselves. Curtailing their due process rights through administrative hearings would make it nearly impossible for them to do so. Here’s why:

• Even if the vehicle owner wasn’t driving and doesn’t know who was, he is still responsible for paying the fine.
• No additional evidence beyond the ticket itself is needed for a conviction.
• The defendant will not have the right to confront the witnesses against him.
• The defendant will not have the right to request discovery in order build a defense. 
   

AB 666 is just one example of the further assault on drivers’ rights. In New York City, administrative hearings are already the norm for traffic violations. If AB 666 is enacted, count on state lawmakers around the country, urged on by their camera company conspirators, to introduce similar bills in their own states.

Official Launch of Murfreesboro Citizens Against Photo Enforcement this week!

http://www.facebook.com/MurfreesboroCAPE

Those who live in Murfreesboro, TN check out your anti Camera site.

UPDATE: We will be blitzing and promoting this page this week, leading up to the official launch of C.A.P.E. next week with the petition, press releases, and so forth. In the mean time, PLEASE share and promote this page, we need your help! Use this easy URL: www.facebook.com/MurfreesboroCAPE

Camera Enforcement - Charting a Catastrophic Failure (2009)

By Greg Mauz

Excerpt:

When "selling" their product to your city conuncil, ticket camera companies promise that "photo enforcement will dramatically reduce ALL (or overall) signal related crashes, injuries and fatalities."  Addition, they claim crashes decrease citywide through "spillover effect" ("halo") at intersections withouth red-light tickete cameras.  Camera promoters define "dramatic" as a -30% or more decrease.

Charged on the following pages are 40 studies, involving 60 cities, employing ticket cameras - mainly red light cameras, but some speed cameras, also.  At least 12 of these studies are camera promoter funded with your money.  NOT even ONE study - when properly scruntinized - can even remotely claim to be a safety success story.

http://www.bhspi.org/mauz/Camera%20Enforcement%20-%20Charting%20A%20Catastrophic%20Failure%203.12.2009.pdf

Drone exception is "huge loophole, it’s an exception that swallows the rule.”

Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PX4oeZwwpqM

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/04/04/cops-with-drones-technology-vs-privacy

Cops with Drones: Alameda Co., CA Weighs Technology vs. Privacy

Paul Detrick | April 4, 2013

For a long time, drones - unmanned aircraft - were used only by the military. Now local law enforcement wants them for police work such as surveillance and search-and-rescue missions. That in turn has sparked a fierce debate over the balance between cutting-edge law enforcement technology and the privacy rights of citizens.

In February, Reason TV covered an Alameda County, California public protection committee meeting in which Sheriff Gregory Ahern https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/about.php announced that he planned on using a laptop-sized drone (he prefers to call it an "unmanned aerial system") for search and rescue. “It’s mission specific to search areas for lost children or elderly or Alzheimer’s patients to search an area that it would be very difficult for our personnel to get to,” said Sheriff Ahern.

Residents and civil liberties advocates are skeptical that drone use would remain so narrowly defined for very long. At the meeting, Linda Lye https://www.aclunc.org/support/profiles/linda_lye.shtml of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California https://www.aclunc.org/ took issue with the sheriff’s submitted draft of a privacy policy http://nomby.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/small-unmanned-aircraft-system-general-order-6-15-draft.pdf. She it's not specific enough about what the sheriff can and cannot do with drones.

“If the sheriff wants a drone for search and rescue then the policy should say he can only use it for search and rescue,” said Lye. “Unfortunately under his policy he can deploy a drone for search and rescue, but then use the data for untold other purposes. That is a huge loophole, it’s an exception that swallows the rule.”

Lye urged the public protection committee not to approve the drone until stricter safeguards were in place. She pointed out that the safeguards were important because the technology will develop very quickly - and possibly to a point where citizens don't have control of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Indeed, Alameda County could serve as the baseline for police and sheriff’s departments across the country, so getting it right there may affect all Americans.

The sheriff plans on applying for permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly aircraft above 400 feet and plans to pay for the drone with a federal grant. MuckRock.com http://muckrock.com/ made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the grant made to the Department of Homeland Security in July 2012 https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/oct/19/alameda-county-sheriff-seeks-drone-thermal-imaging/. The request revealed that Sheriff Ahern was looking to purchase a drone equipped with a something called a "Forward Looking Infrared camera." These thermal-imaging devices detect radiation given off by heat from people or animals, opening up a wide variety of concerns.

Criminal law experts such as Laurie Levenson http://www.lls.edu/aboutus/facultyadministration/faculty/facultylistl-r/levensonlaurie/ of Loyola Law School http://www.lls.edu/ say law enforcement hasn’t been given enough legal guidance on drones yet.

“If you say we’re going to use it for a manhunt, what do you call a manhunt? If you say you want to use it to find missing persons, well, how far can you go with that?” says Levenson. She says that it’s a matter of drawing lines because it’s just too easy to become Big Brother without them. What happens, for instance, if police capture evidence of unrelated criminal activity while searching for a lost toddler? Can they use that to trigger arrests and prosecution?

Trevor Timm https://www.eff.org/about/staff/trevor-timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/ points out that it is very hard to draw lines with police because, once police have a certain power, they never want to give it up.

“Police always seem to want to push the boundaries as far as the law will take them and sometimes over those boundaries,” says Timm.

He points to law enforcement and cell phone data as an example. The New York Times reported http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/us/cell-carriers-see-uptick-in-requests-to-aid-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 in 2012 that law enforcement made 1.3 million demands in 2011 of phone companies for subscriber locations, text messages, and other information. Because there weren’t strict privacy rules in place when mobile phones first exploded onto the market, it made it that much easier for law enforcement to obtain civilian data without search warrants or users' approval or even knowing about the requests.

"Generally there is this real friction between technology and civil liberties and we haven't really figured out how to deal with it," says Levenson. We don't know how to deal with it because technology is developing a lot faster than the law can keep up. Government cameras are everywhere these days and the laws that deal with them go back to the time of the framers of the Constitution. "What did they know about drones?" asks Levenson.

About 8 minutes.

Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Camera by Alex Manning, Zach Weissmueller, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Detrick.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

For Reason's coverage of drones, go here.  http://reason.com/tags/drones

http://washingtonexaminer.com/five-solid-reasons-to-ban-traffic-enforcement-cameras/article/2526161


Casey W. Raskob: Five solid reasons to ban traffic-enforcement cameras

April 3, 2013 | 7:00 pm

Casey W. Raskob,  OpEd Contributor

The Washington Examiner

Cameras don't enforce the law; they just send a bill.

When a motorist violates a law and is stopped by a police officer, important things happen. The motorist is physically stopped. The officer inquires. The registration of the vehicle is checked, the driver's license run, and the proof of insurance produced.

The motorist is immediately confronted with his or her wrongdoing. If drunk, unlicensed, uninsured or otherwise unsafe, the motorist is immediately removed from the road, increasing the safety of other road users.

The camera will not arrest any of those behaviors. Replacing live police officers with a camera on a pole is not a substitution of the officer; it is an abandonment of law enforcement on any meaningful level.

Cameras demand bad traffic engineering practices.

Yellow light intervals used to be of interest only to traffic engineers. Once tiny, technical violations of red lights became a profit center, and yellow intervals as set could actually determine violator percentages, yellow intervals became a political issue.

Ideally, a yellow light should give a few seconds for a driver to clear an intersection at the speeds prevailing on the road. Often, the yellow intervals are set to the speed limit, not reflecting actual road speeds, and in many instances, yellow intervals are set shorter than that for a variety of reasons.

It has been shown that "red light running" can be drastically reduced with correct yellow light timing, to a point where the cameras become unprofitable. When this occurs, the next approach in "enforcement for profit" is to prosecute "right turns on red."

This happens when the driver does not come to a complete stop for a second or two before turning, which is another technical violation with no safety ramification, but one that can be photo-enforced for profit.

Underposted speed limits equal profits.

It is a well-settled principle of traffic safety engineering that speed limits should be set according to the 85th percentile of free flow traffic on most roads. Over time, as average speeds have increased on roads, limits have not been raised to reflect this, with the notable exception of interstate speed limits in western states.

Live police officers have discretion to pursue flagrant violators driving faster than the pace of the normal driver. Camera supporters totally ignore the fact that many speed limits are underposted, instead suggesting cameras are "more fair" as they don't have the discretion of the police officer.

But these same camera-enforcement advocates never suggest setting speed limits according to established highway engineering criteria. The numbers on the sign are not handed down from God, but camera proponents act as if they are.

Cameras don't stop dangerous drivers.

Drivers who tailgate, weave, drive too slowly or erratically, or have a good buzz going, have little to fear from a camera, especially if that camera replaces a live police officer.

Cameras corrupt the rule of law with money.

The great reality of politics is that you can't raise taxes but neither can you reduce services. Any elected official, like myself, who has to wrestle with a budget knows that it is very tough.

Camera tickets are free money for governments. They take money from "traffic violators" who are "bad people." Best of all, the camera bill arrives in the mail, to the registered owner of the vehicle like a parking ticket, weeks after the alleged violation.

Often, the camera merchants work hard to keep the photo tickets out of the "real" court systems to blunt any opposition. The camera income becomes a free-money line item in the budget, one that won't willingly be removed.

Casey W. Raskob, Esq., is an attorney with the National Motorists Association who has been working toward traffic safety engineering-based solutions to traffic management since lobbying for the repeal of the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit.

 

Parking Meter Company A ‘Parasitic Business’? 
Not Camera Related.  But why you should never outsource government.  http://theexpiredmeter.com/2013/03/parking-meter-company-a-parasitic-business/

Quote: Lind was criticizing what he called the Rentier class — financiers who make money not by selling goods and services, but by “their natural or artificial monopoly power to extract excessive tolls, fees and other recurrent payments from the rest of society, including productive businesses.”

Ban the Cams note:  Kind of reminds us of the RLC industry don't it.  The nature of their business is to:

"extract excessive  tolls, fees (tickets) and other recurrent payments from the rest of society, including productive businesses.”

Ever wonder why you see big invesement banks like Goldman Sacs invest in companies like ATS, others in Redflex.  

The RLC industry is a PARASITIC BUSINESS dependent on "violations" to stay in business.  The money taken from all those right turns, stop line and split second "vioaltions" (that longer ambers help stop), leave local economies.  RLC are PARASITIC BUSINESS.  not a safety one. 

All one has to do is look at the history of RLC to see this.  In the early days they use to only cite for straight thru (usually with 3/10 to 1/2 second grace periods). 

But in order to keep the revenue going they have created "vioaltions" by lowering grace periods to 1/10 (maybe under too we suspect), moved trigger lines around by use of the curb line scam, cited for right turn on reds (that you could go a billion miles before getting in a wreck doing),  and even stopping on the stop line.

Those are the actions of a PARASITIC BUSINESS.  THAT IS THE RLC INDUSTRY and all who are PAID to push RLC whether as paid employees of the vendors or even their front groups.

Parking Meter Company A ‘Parasitic Business’?
March 31, 2013   Parking Meter Lease Deal
Parasites.

That’s what  NBC 5′s Ward Room columnist, Edward McClelland, calls Chicago Parking Meters, LLC,  the company which controls the city’s 30,000 metered parking spaces.

In a recent column http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Chicago-Parking-Meters-LLC-Parasitic-Business-200062111.html#ixzz2PC3eDk8S, McClelland calls CPM a “parasitic business.”

McClelland, references a recent Salon piece by political commentator Michael Lind http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/defeating_useless_rich_people/:

Lind was criticizing what he called the Rentier class — financiers who make money not by selling goods and services, but by “their natural or artificial monopoly power to extract excessive tolls, fees and other recurrent payments from the rest of society, including productive businesses.”

The typical rich American, Lind argued, “should be an innovative industrialist or technologist, not a Wall Street financier or a guy with a parking-meter monopoly.”

McClelland wholeheartedly agrees with Lind saying the 75-year lease for $1.16 billion is essentially a monopoly which CPM will exploit to the tune of billions of dollars over the term of the agreement.

While some of what Lind and McClelland say is undoubtedly true, their blame is completely misplaced.

Companies exist to maximize profit for their owners or investors. For the two writers to be surprised when a company like CPM behave in this way is naive and nonsensical.

Their ire should be directed at former Mayor Richard Daley, his administration and the alderman who voted for the crappy parking meter lease deal in the first place–not CPM for finding and executing a lucrative business deal.

Here’s McClelland’s full piece, “Chicago Parking Meters LLC, Parasitic “Business”.  http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Chicago-Parking-Meters-LLC-Parasitic-Business-200062111.html#ixzz2PC3eDk8S

Does Wandall work for ATS front group NCSR???  NYT says she is NCSR "president".

Melissa Wandall who brought Floridians the Wandall Scamera Act who based on past reports denies being paid to promote RLC, seems to be working for ATS Front Group NCSR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/us/traffic-cameras-draw-more-scrutiny-by-states.html?_r=1&

The quote:

"When asked about efforts to strike down a Florida law permitting traffic cameras, Melissa Wandall, president of the National Coalition for Safer Roads,"

 

(Ban the Cams has a PDF of this article in case it "disappears".  The quote on here is on page 2 about half way).

NCSR is a known ATS Front Group  http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp
 

Quote:  Last month, a group calling itself the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR) obtained a great deal of exposure for red light cameras through the "National Stop on Red Week" publicity campaign. Several police departments around the country participated, with most news reports treating the issue as a public service announcement. Documents show the group coordinating this effort, NCSR, is controlled exclusively by the photo ticketing firm American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

As previously reported, NCSR is the creation of David Kelly, the head of the public relations firm Storm King Strategies, and ATS is just one of Kelly's many clients. According to congressional records, Kelly has received at least $580,000 since 2009 to lobby in favor of ticketing for the National Safety Council; for legislation mandating ignition interlocks on behalf of interlock manufacturers; and for reduced CAFE standards on behalf of Jaguar-Land Rover.

Documents incorporating NCSR Inc as a nonprofit entity in the state of Missouri confirm that NCSR is anything but the independent campaign of "victims, parents, medical professionals and first responders" as the group's publicity material suggests. NCSR's board of directors instead consists of three individuals: James D. Tuton, ATS president; George J. Hittner, ATS General Counsel; and Charles Territo, ATS spokesman.

Heck even former FL rep Ron Reagan who brought the RLC to FL works for them now. 

Quote II: ",,,Ron Reagan, the former state representative responsible for legalizing cameras in Florida, both are now part of NCSR-ATS."

 

If what the NYT says is now true.  It looks like Wandall works for a known Camera Vendor Front Group.

There has been speculation in the past that Wandall might be receiving financial support from those who financially benefit from RLC to lobby for them.  This Newspaper.com article had the following quote:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3076.asp

Wandall's Coalition website lists insurance companies and photo enforcement firms as "supporters" (PDF File view list, 350k PDF). She has also confirmed receiving financial support from Manatee and Sarasota counties -- both of which stand to profit significantly from passage of this legislation. Despite receiving compensation for her lobbying activities, Wandall has not registered with the state as a lobbyist. County governments may not provide such payments to non-registered lobbyists.

"No person shall provide compensation for lobbying to any individual or business entity that is not a lobbying firm," Florida Statutes section 11.045 states. "'Lobbying' means influencing or attempting to influence legislative action or nonaction through oral or written communication or an attempt to obtain the goodwill of a member or employee of the legislature."

The Stop Red Light Running Coalition of Florida appears to match key criteria for a lobbying firm under state law.

"'Lobbying firm' means any business entity, including an individual contract lobbyist, that receives or becomes entitled to receive any compensation for the purpose of lobbying, where any partner, owner, officer, or employee of the business entity is a lobbyist," Florida Statutes section 11.045 states.
 

Is it true Melissa Wandall works for NCSR as the NYT article indicates??????

We don't know.  All we know is that the NYT has a quote indicating she is NCSR president.  Which was previoiusly held by ATS president James D. Tuton.

Note we will be happy to update this if we see corrections from the the NYT on this subject.

Attachments:

File	Description
Wandall NCSR 4.2.2013.pdf

Iowa Traffic Surveillance and Drones forum

Jill Nob

Part 1 of clips from the Traffic Surveillance and Drones forum. An excellent panel of concerned experts covered many aspects of the impact of increasing surveillance.

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10151380985275954

Posted on Ban Traffic Cameras and Drones in Iowa City.  https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/BanTrafficCamerasAndDronesInIowaCity/503527319704811/?notif_t=group_activity

To Serve And Collect:  Traffic Enforcement should be about public safety not revenue enhancement

By:  Chris Sweryda

The purpose of street signage and traffic enforcement is to improve safety. Although fines are used as a disincentive to encourage compliance, their purpose is not a substitute for tax collection. If fine collection becomes the goal of regulatory enforcement, the system is open to blatant abuse.

We might wish to believe that improper and missing signage in the City of Winnipeg is just a matter of sloppy administration, but when such locations are exploited by the traffic police and the justice system turns a blind eye, it is hard to accept that drivers are not being preyed upon to boost the city budget. This problem has many levels, but it all starts with inadequate, improper and missing traffic signage.

Data confirm that the City of Winnipeg has some of the highest fines in Canada, if not North America.  The city administration and police may swear up and down that no "ticket quotas" exist, and that safety is the only concern, their actions speak differently. Moreover, they are ready to unleash their system of laser cameras to target the motoring public for yet greater fine collection.

This presentation will expose the practices, and let the audience decide whether the traffic signage policy of the city is simply irresponsible or blatantly dishonourable.

Click Here to Go To The Frontier Centre's Site  http://www.fcpp.org/event.php/373

Ban the Cams note:  Lastest Newsletter out of Winnipeg is on the PDF.

Attachments:

File	Description
Wiseupwinnipeg february 2013 newsletter.pdf

(2011 out of Australia).  Let the people decide how much

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11611&page=0

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Monday, 14 February 2011

Early each year we often see media stories about how many people were killed in road accidents over the holiday season and whether this is higher or lower than previous years.

The source of these stories is usually one of the government agencies responsible for road traffic issues, such as the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, and invariably includes claims about excess speed, idiotic drivers and the obvious need for further measures to compel drivers to slow down.

The tone is typically patronising. If only drivers would be more responsible or, like naughty children who refuse to behave, they must be caught and punished. There are often lectures by police officers who tell us it’s all for our own good, while governments run advertisements trying to frighten us into slowing down with gory pictures of accidents or warnings of lifelong injuries.

There are two problems with all this. One is that speed is nowhere near the cause of road casualties it is made out to be. Second, the overwhelming majority of drivers know this and, through their actions, indicate they do not believe exceeding the speed limit is inherently dangerous, that they are at fault when they do so, or that enforcement measures are merited.

Speed limits are much the same as they were 40 years ago, yet road traffic deaths have declined dramatically. Just in the last 20 years they have approximately halved, notwithstanding increases in car numbers and distances travelled.

The reasons for this decline have little to do with speeds, which mostly go up whenever enforcement is not apparent, but to improvements in vehicle safety (eg brakes, tyres, airbags, seat belts and electronic stability control) plus better roads.

This is confirmed by the fact that much larger declines occurred in many other countries over the same period, including some where speed limits are higher than in Australia. That includes Germany and the UK, which also have fewer fatalities per 100,000 people.

The RTA claims speed is a key factor in over 40% of road deaths, but the data behind this is very flimsy. Speed is often blamed by accident investigators whenever an alternative explanation is not apparent, even when lone drivers commit suicide by crashing into a tree at high speed.

Other countries tell a different story. Official British road casualty statistics for 2006 show "exceeding speed limit" was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that "travelling too fast for conditions" was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).

Similar results were found in a study published in 2008 by the US National Highway Safety Traffic Administration. Based on early and detailed post-accident investigations of 5,471 accidents, it concluded that driving too fast for conditions or too fast for a curve accounted for just 13.3% of them. (More than a third of accidents were found to be related to an intersection.)

In the absence of a speed camera or other enforcement, probably three-quarters of all Australian drivers would exceed the speed limit when they felt it was safe to do so. Anecdotally, that includes most off-duty police officers as well as the journalists who write the stories discussing lack of compliance with speed limits. At certain times, a car crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge would hold up traffic if it travelled below the speed limit.

This has led to enormous cynicism about the enforcement of speed limits and their contribution to state government budgets. There is something inherently absurd about being told that travelling at 5 km/hr above the limit is dangerous while it is safe at 5 km/hr below it.

That raises an interesting question. When the law says one thing and a large majority of people demonstrate they have a different view, which prevails? If the law is supposed to reflect the values of society, as is supposedly the basis of the common law and a key expectation of democracy, the law is clearly wrong. Only in a dictatorship do we expect the ruler to insist the people are wrong.

The way some public servants and politicians talk, you could be forgiven for thinking that the policy objective of traffic laws is to reduce accidents and deaths to zero. Yet that is clearly nonsense – accidents causing death and injury are inevitable at any speed above walking pace. The road toll could be immediately stopped by reducing speed limits to 10 km/hr or by banning cars.

Clearly, there is a trade-off. Explicitly or not, we accept a certain level of accidents as the price of convenient travel, as we do in numerous other activities. What is apparent from the fact that so many drivers disobey the speed limits when they have the opportunity is that the trade-off needs recalibrating. And rather than public servants deciding what it ought to be, the community as a whole should do it.

There is an internationally recognised method by which this can be achieved, known as the 85th percentile formula. In essence, it involves the temporary removal of the speed limit while speeds are monitored. At the conclusion of the period, a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the speed at which 85 percent of drivers travel.

The concept is based on the assumption that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to have a crash, and wish to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.

It is supported by statistical evidence, which shows that those who exceed speed limits based on the 85th percentile are substantially more likely to cause accidents (as are those who travel below the 15th percentile). Enforcement directed at these drivers thus has a positive impact on road safety while enjoying community support and avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising.

If the formula was applied to Australian roads, speed limits would certainly be increased on our major highways, probably to European levels. There may also be increases on some dual carriageways in metropolitan areas, although it is unlikely most suburban streets would change. Given that most drivers are indeed reasonable and prudent, there might even be a few reductions.

Notwithstanding the flawed assumptions about speed and road accidents, an increase in casualties cannot be ruled out. But if there was to be an increase, it would reflect the community’s choice of trade-off. Moreover, unlike the current situation where public servants and politicians set speed limits and are blamed for any increase in casualties, there would be nobody to criticise. With choice comes responsibility.

It is high time governments stopped treating motorists like naughty children and a source of additional revenue. Australia’s speed limits are not only lower than the rest of the world, but are out of step with community values. In a society in which the government serves the people, they should be updated.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Iowa-City-Organization-College-Republicans-Team-Up-on-Red-Light-Cameras-and-Drones-200539481.html

Iowa City Organization, College Republicans Team Up on Red Light Cameras and Drones
By Hayley Bruce, Reporter

IOWA CITY — Citizens, politicians, and organizations from both the right and the left united on Thursday night to discuss concerns over technology advancements they believe pose a threat to American civil liberties.

The nonpartisan event — organized by StopBigBrother.org, Young Americans for Liberty, College Republicans and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa — was held with hopes of supporting the effort to ban traffic surveillance cameras and drones in Iowa City, based on the concern that such technology poses a threat to personal privacy and due process.

The forum comes more than a year after StopBigBrother.org — led by Iowa City residents Aleksey Gurtovoy and Martha Hampel — formed in an effort to prevent the Iowa City City Council from passing an ordinance that would allow traffic enforcement cameras.

During the forum, panelists discussed the safety and moral issues involving traffic cameras, including the idea that high fines associated with the cameras could disproportionately affect the poor, the thought red-light cameras can cause more traffic accidents and concerns the cameras might not allow registered owners of cars and drivers due process if they are ticketed.

Though there hasn't been talk of drones being used in Iowa City to date, the panel also covered concerns over the possibility of local law enforcement entities buying drones for city surveillance. Throughout the panel, speakers stressed the need to act to slow the use of both red-light cameras and drones immediately, before their use is too pervasive.

"If we don't deal with traffic cameras and surveillance now, will we have a chance?" said Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa. "Ten years from now there's nothing we can do. It will be so far down the tracks we won't be able to change the trends…if we don't deal with it now or very soon it will be too big of an issue for us to deal with."

Ben Stone, executive director of the ACLU of Iowa, said his organization is primarily concerned with ensuring that such technology is used practically and appropriately.

"ACLU's position on drones is not that we're against them. We don't think technology is the end of the world as an organization, but we believe that there are useful practical things that unmanned aerial devices can do," Stone said. "They can be interesting fascinating and cool, but it's also kind of creepy and kind of scary so you have to balance your Star Wars with your George Orwell."

Even though the Iowa City City Council approved the red-light camera ordinance in Feb. 2012, no cameras have been put in place yet, and it will likely be at least a year before red-light cameras go up even if the city decides to move forward.

The Iowa Department of Transportation recently said it was developing rules for the use of traffic-enforcement cameras on state routes. Several of the intersections where Iowa City wants to install red-light cameras are on state roads, and the city's plans had already been delayed by the need to collect additional data for the DOT under more general state guidelines.

This week, city staffers recommended waiting to finish that work until after the Department of Transportation adopts the rules to ensure the city gets what the state wants. The DOT has said it could take up to a year to develop the rules, said John Yapp, Iowa City's transportation planner.

In the mean time, the citizen group is working to gather signatures for what they are calling an initiative to force the City Council to either repeal the ordinance or put it to a public vote. Gurtovoy said Thursday he believes the group has at least 2,400 of the 2,500 signatures it needs in order to get the city council to act. However there is some dispute between the group and the city attorney over whether the group has gathered signatures for an initiative, which would propose a measure for the councils consideration, or a referendum, which requires the council to reconsider an existing measure and needs to be filed within 60 days of the decision. That 60 day period has expired.

Though there were several bills aimed at restricting automated law enforcement cameras and drones, all failed to advance out of committee by the so-called funnel deadline earlier this year and are not expected to move forward.

Gazette reporter Gregg Hennigan contributed to this report.

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/303250020/1079/?nclick_check=1

Forum on traffic surveillance scheduled for March 28
Mar. 24, 2013 11:36 PM,   |  

A public forum in support of hte initiative to ban traffic surveillance in Iowa City is scheduled for March 28.

The traffic surveillance forum will take place from 7 to 9 p.m. in Auditorium W-290 in the Chemistry Building on the University of Iowa campus. ACLU of Iowa executive director Ben Stone will deliver the keynote address and be follwed by a panel discussion on traffic surveillance, public safety and socio-economic, judicial and civil liberties issues.

The president of the National Motorist Association and state Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbanbale, are also scheduled to speak.

Through the forum, Iowa City residents can sign a petition against red-light cameras and other traffic surveillance. The petition requires 2,500 signatures by April 1 to be considered for adoption by the city council or to go to a public vote in November.