From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice@math.Princeton.EDU>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 03:57:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Big Brother is watching
In-Reply-To: <2bb492db8556543171a4af60b2cea4ed@anon.efga.org>
Message-ID: <19970904154807.23567@math.princeton.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Thu, Sep 04, 1997 at 10:01:20AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> (We have the cameras in our area, too. In Campbell, CA, for example. My
> recollection from news stories is that the camera also snaps a photo of the
> driver, allowing reasonably positive ID. If the photo is blurred or not
> usable in court, the traffic charge is dropped (probably only if
> challenged, though). Some interesting constitutional issues, it seems to
> me. Namely, if Alice is driving Bob's car and is ticketed, should Bob face
> the points on his license? Or even criminal charges? Seems to violate our
> notions of scienter.)

Photo radars are common in France, too. I was told by a cop friend that
no more than 20% of the photos are useable (that is, show clearly the
license plate for purpose of identification). And the law was modified a
couple of years ago, to answer the question you ask. If somebody is
driving your car, and you don't give his name, then you face the charges
(pay the ticket, and get the points...). The funny thing is, when they
started using photo radars, they were sending the photo with the
summons. Which, of course can be a problem, as if your wife opens it and
find the photo with you and and your mistress. This actually happened,
and the court ruled it was a violation of privacy. Now you have to go to
the police to see the photo. Needless to say, anything you would use to
cover your plates is outlawed...

                           F.

-- 
Fabrice Planchon                                          (ph) 609/258-6495
Applied Math Program, 210 Fine Hall                      (fax) 609/258-1735