That should not be the case. Everyone has the right to walk around in public without being recorded and identified.tippy2k2 said:You lose most of your rights to privacy when you are in public space and someone video taping (whether it's automated by the government or some stranger video taping his family and you happen to be in the background).
I did not agree to anything. I was born into a society that I vehemently disagree with and there's no opt out button in sight.As to the question at hand, we all have weird justifications for why we should obey some laws and some are just more guidelines than laws. It's the whole "I was barely going over the speed limit!" defense; if you really think about that, it doesn't make sense because "just barely over" is still over and therefore it's illegal. Part of the agreement you have with society is that you will follow the rules society sets and you get the benefits of said society.
But there is an opt-out button.Flames66 said:I did not agree to anything. I was born into a society that I vehemently disagree with and there's no opt out button in sight.
This... this is a word I know. Seven years in the country it comes from will do that. This word does not normally appear on the Escapist, why has it appeared on the Escapist?TizzytheTormentor said:Gardá
Those people need to have their driver's license taken off them. Speed limits, particularly ones in urban zones, are in place for safety reasons. While I believe there is some lee-way given here in the UK towards speed limits to take into account mechanical variations (I think the "accepted rule" is 10% + 2), it doesn't alter the fact that at 30 MPH, around 80% of people survive an impact (if they get hit at all). At 40 MPH, that figure takes a drastic turn-around to an 80% fatality rate. Yeah.Lord Garnaat said:As an example, people always tell me that they never follow the speed limit, because such regulations are unreasonable and get in a driver's way, or because someone was in a hurry, or because breaking it is a 'victimless crime'. Of course, it's only victimless until the moment you accidentally rear-end a minivan because you were going 65 in a 40 MPH zone...
Of course, there's no state in the US where same sex marriage is illegal in such a way that two people undergoing a wedding are actually violating the law.an annoyed writer said:Aside from a couple traffic tickets, I generally tend to be pretty good about obeying the law. However, there's one thing that is still banned in my state, and I'm going to celebrate anyway because that law is stupid for the obvious reasons. I'm going to celebrate... A GAY MARRIAGE! O: Whenever my friend and her fiance tie the knot, anyway.
Also, there's another side effect. I know two people who have been rear-ended on the interstate because they were "only" going the speed limit at the time. I actually sort of wonder how common this is, because the minute you get south of the state border here, everyone jumps like 10 MPH despite the speed limit remaining the same and I've nearly been creamed a couple of times for not doing 55 in a 40 zone.Lord Garnaat said:As an example, people always tell me that they never follow the speed limit, because such regulations are unreasonable and get in a driver's way, or because someone was in a hurry, or because breaking it is a 'victimless crime'. Of course, it's only victimless until the moment you accidentally rear-end a minivan because you were going 65 in a 40 MPH zone, just like underaged drinking is only harmless until some 15-year-old chokes on their own vomit in a drunken haze.
You're driving on public property. Ergo, you follow the public rules. Your precious "privacy" is limited to what you have on your person and on your own property, owned or leased, and nowhere else. Taking pictures of your car is as legal and ethical as Google Maps taking a photo of your house as it drives by. If you actually think about it, this makes sense, as it perfectly straddles the fine line between "invasive" and "exploitable" by being mostly neither.Reiper said:I have not done this one yet, but I was also looking into systems to potentially block ANPR and road cameras, which I consider to be an invasion of my privacy. I probably won't end up doing this, since it seems the countermeasures have dubious effectiveness anyway, but if I did, so what? It may be illegal, but why should I care? I say it should be illegal to have the cameras in the first place.
I very much agree. People who say it's a victimless crime should probably have a talk to the millions of people who get injured or killed (or their families, whatever) every year. The two biggest causes of accidents, directly and indirectly, are speeding and frustration. Hell, frustration is generally caused by people wanting to go faster than those in front of them, and when said person is travelling at the speed limit this could be put down to a similar issue too.Idsertian said:Those people need to have their driver's license taken off them. Speed limits, particularly ones in urban zones, are in place for safety reasons. While I believe there is some lee-way given here in the UK towards speed limits to take into account mechanical variations (I think the "accepted rule" is 10% + 2), it doesn't alter the fact that at 30 MPH, around 80% of people survive an impact (if they get hit at all). At 40 MPH, that figure takes a drastic turn-around to an 80% fatality rate. Yeah.
Or so an old anti-speeding campaign would have you believe, anyway. I'm no doctor, that's for sure.