Rego checks

[kircher]

Originally Posted by Pinkbits

I think some of you are looking into it far too deeply and seem to be a little paranoid.

I think the "paranoia" that some of us are displaying stems from wanting to know more of what potential this technology has. As I said before, if it makes it easier to spot people that are actually DOING the wrong thing, then fine (no pun intended). My issues are the potential for what I would call misuse.

If it means that people would be targeted for non-random checks because they have one point left, or because they were drink driving 5 years ago when they were 17 - 18, or even if they have a non-driving record, eg posession of a small quantity of marijuana etc, then this is cause for concern.

That would be one step closer to the aforementioned police state that I hope no one wants. Believe it or not, every new law that restricts us further, just adds to the bureaucracy, and restricts civil liberties even further. We want smaller government, not bigger. Also it is our responsibility, not just a right to challenge such things that the government plans to enforce without consultation periods. The government is supposed to represent the people, not control them. I am getting off topic slightly, but my point is that this technology has the very real potential to be used in the wrong way.

[ltd]

Excellent idea, and I don't think that it flags drivers; it's made to flag unregistered vehicles, anyone could be behind the wheel.
I've lost count of the amount of accidents I've seen where the person who caused the accident tries to drive off because they are unregistered.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

What about those forgetful few who don't watch their expiry dates and whose rego renewals are late in the mail? Do they cop this too? You know, one day or two out of reg...

No excuse. As the driver you are responsible for making sure the car you drive is registered. You can pay your rego over the net. Even if the sticker takes a few days to arrive, you are covered because your car is registered. Why do we need to make excuses for forgetful people?

[GT450]

It would appear some here on the forums have something to worry about. If your vehicle is registered and roadworthy and you have a valid licence then you have nothing to fear. Anything that removes idiots , licenced or otherwise and unregisted unroadworthy cars of our roads protects us all. I would much rather the police did their jobs and my family arrive home safe and sound every night than carry on like some here reading far more into it than was ever meant by the government. Paranoia? yes methinks and maybe with good cause for some.
Cheers
GT450

[ltd]

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

What about those forgetful few who don't watch their expiry dates and whose rego renewals are late in the mail? Do they cop this too? You know, one day or two out of reg...

What if you were to forget to register your vehicle and you then run into the back of a DB9 on the ring road; injuring yours and the Db9's passengers?
You'd tell your insurance company surely about the odd 150 grand damage to the car, plus your car being written off, a litigation expert in the DB9 with whiplash wanting 500K, the driver wanting 600K for the same, your passengers needing surgery and suing you for endangering their lives etc. Sure, here comes the insurance but NO! It's invalid as the vehicle is unregistered. What about your CTP? Invalid as vehicle unregistered.
What about personal liability? Culpable and easily proven wreckless all because you forgot. Sorry 76TXcoupe I'm not trying to be hard on you but trying to highlight what can and does happen.

Guys, driving without registration and insurance is like visiting a brothel without wearing a condom - the dumbest thing you could ever do and a fast way to ruin your life.

[john3136]

Originally Posted by flappist

But as I have said on many occaisions, the only way to fix this is with the ballot box.

Agreed, but I don't think either of the 2 major parties will change it, nor do I think anyone except the 2 majors has a realistic chance of getting in.

I guess you can get some independents holding the balance of power and if some of them are like minded then there might be a chance.

Otherwise I think we're just in for more of the same...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by john3136

Agreed, but I don't think either of the 2 major parties will change it, nor do I think anyone except the 2 majors has a realistic chance of getting in.

I guess you can get some independents holding the balance of power and if some of them are like minded then there might be a chance.

Otherwise I think we're just in for more of the same...

Unfortunately I suspect you are right in the short term. But remember politicians need to be in for several terms to get access to the "gravy train for life".

If you keep whacking them (both sides) they will soon get the message. Historically anyone who is out for a long time will do almost anything and change any policy to gain power. The problem is that they then gravitate back unless they are afraid of being kicked up the bum.
Independents can be very good but also very dangerous. Often they have a very narrow agenda and can wreak havoc if given half a chance.

On the other hand if this was easy we would not have constant problems and the average Australian really does not care about anyrhing as long as the beer is cold, the fooball is in HD and the weather girl waers a low cut dress..

[kircher]

Originally Posted by GT450

It would appear some here on the forums have something to worry about. If your vehicle is registered and roadworthy and you have a valid licence then you have nothing to fear. Anything that removes idiots , licenced or otherwise and unregisted unroadworthy cars of our roads protects us all. I would much rather the police did their jobs and my family arrive home safe and sound every night than carry on like some here reading far more into it than was ever meant by the government. Paranoia? yes methinks and maybe with good cause for some.
Cheers
GT450

I don't know if that was targeted at me, balthasar or anyone who questions government policy. As I said before, I agree if it is used to take unworthy vehicles/drivers off of the road, then it's probably a good thing. My issue is the potential for misuse. We have to ask these questions. Will this be used strictly to find unregistered vehicles or unlicensed drivers or people flagged with arrest warrants or whatever?

I think everyone has the fundamental right to some sort of privacy/anonymity without being hassled for PAST mishaps. I don't believe I have reason to be paranoid, but yes, I have a record, not a serious one, but a record nonetheless, and I would hate to be targeted for non-random checks because hypothetically I chose to speed 10km/h over when I concluded it was safe to do so 3 years ago or because I have lost points for not wearing a seatbelt or because I didn't completely stop at a stop sign, etcetera etcetera.

Another point, I didn't target my qualms at police doing their job, more the jobs they are told to do by the men in suits, ie the legislature. I should have made it clear and said legislature instead of government.

[EDManual]

My mate has 2 similar subarus, one is registered, the other is well, a bush basher. Drives them both :-) And cops dont have a clue. Even if pulled over, as luckily rego stickers can be transplanted so easily! For a laugh he should drive past one of these cop setups!

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by GT450

It would appear some here on the forums have something to worry about. If your vehicle is registered and roadworthy and you have a valid licence then you have nothing to fear. Anything that removes idiots , licenced or otherwise and unregisted unroadworthy cars of our roads protects us all. I would much rather the police did their jobs and my family arrive home safe and sound every night than carry on like some here reading far more into it than was ever meant by the government. Paranoia? yes methinks and maybe with good cause for some.
Cheers
GT450

I reckon this was aimed at me. Not that it matters, but I'm clean. No demerits, driver's licence expires 2011, and car rego isn't due until the end of October.

There's a famous quote (probably) by Martin Niemöller - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... - I'm not waiting until they come for me before I speak out. (Read the quote... I don't think they're coming for me.)

Below is an excellent (though American-centric) article by Bruce Shneier, a well-respected security specialist, on this very topic found at http://www.schneier.com/essay-147.html. I've added my own emphasis.

On Police Security Cameras
Wholesale Surveillance
By Bruce Schneier
San Francisco Chronicle
January 2007

A version of this op ed appeared in the Arizona Daily Star on January 11, 2007.

San Francisco police have a new law enforcement tool: a car-mounted license-plate scanner. Similar to a radar gun, it reads the license plates of moving or parked cars -- 250 or more per hour -- and links with remote police databases, immediately providing information about the car and its owner. Right now, the police check for unpaid parking tickets. A car that comes up positive on the database is booted.

On the face of it, this is nothing new. The police have always been able to run a license plate check. The difference is they would do it manually, and that limited its use. It simply wasn't feasible for the police to run the plates of every car in a parking garage, or every car that passed through an intersection. What is different isn't the police tactic, but the efficiency of the process.

Technology is fundamentally changing the nature of surveillance. Years ago, surveillance meant trench-coated detectives following people down streets. It was laborious and expensive, and was only used when there was reasonable suspicion of a crime. Modern surveillance is the police officer with a license-plate scanner, or even a remote license-plate scanner mounted on a traffic light and a police officer sitting at a computer in the police station. It's the same, but it's completely different.

It's wholesale surveillance.

And it disrupts the balance between the powers of the police and the rights of the people.

Wholesale surveillance is fast becoming the norm. Northern California's FasTrak toll-collection system tracks cars at tunnels and bridges. We can all be tracked by our cell phones. Our purchases are tracked by banks and credit-card companies, our telephone calls by phone companies, our Internet surfing habits by Web-site operators. Security cameras are everywhere. The San Francisco Police Commission will vote tomorrow on adding community security cameras at eight different city intersections.

Like the license-plate scanners, the electronic footprints we leave everywhere can be automatically correlated with databases. The data can be stored forever, allowing police to conduct surveillance backward in time.
The effects of wholesale surveillance on privacy and civil liberties is profound; but unfortunately, the debate often gets mischaracterized as a question about how much privacy we need to give up in order to be secure. This is wrong.

It's obvious that we are all safer when the police can use all techniques at their disposal. What we need are corresponding mechanisms to prevent abuse, and that don't place an unreasonable burden on the innocent.
Throughout our nation's history, we have maintained a balance between the necessary interests of police and the civil rights of the people. The license plate itself is such a balance. We can imagine the debate from the early 1900s: The police proposed affixing a plaque to every car with the car owner's name, so they could better track cars used in crimes. Civil libertarians objected because that would reduce the privacy of every car owner. So a compromise was reached: a random string of letter and numbers that the police could use to determine the car owner. By deliberately designing a more cumbersome system, the needs of law enforcement and the public's right to privacy were balanced.

The search-warrant process, as prescribed in the Fourth Amendment, is another balancing method. So is the minimization requirement for telephone eavesdropping: the police must stop listening to a phone line if the suspect under investigation is not talking.

For license-plate scanners, one obvious protection is to require the police to erase data collected on innocent car owners immediately, and not save it. The police have no legitimate need to collect data on everyone's driving habits. Another is to allow car owners access to the information about them used in these automated searches, and to allow them to challenge inaccuracies.

We need to go further. Criminal penalties are severe in order to create a deterrent, because it is hard to catch wrongdoers. As they become easier to catch, a realignment is necessary. When the police can automate the detection of a wrongdoing, perhaps there should no longer be any criminal penalty attached. For example, both red-light cameras and speed-trap cameras could all issue citations without any "points" assessed against the driver.

Wholesale surveillance is not simply a more efficient way for the police to do what they've always done. It's a new police power, one made possible with today's technology and one that will be made easier with tomorrow's. And with any new police power, we as a society need to take an active role in establishing rules governing its use. To do otherwise is to cede ever more authority to the police.

[kircher]

Thank you balthazarr for saying what I couldn't. Whatever happens with this and other new technologies, there needs to be some sort of control to limit what can and can't be done with it to protect the rights and privacy of citizens.

Every time a new way for the authorities to 'check up' on the populace is introduced the bar is raised so that anything that comes after it doesn't seem so bad. It's just little baby steps, so it's OK right?

Consider the startling similarities to Orwell's '1984'. Everyone is familiar with the concept of "Big Brother". This book was published in 1949, and the general public then would not have accepted the level of surveillance we have now, because they were used to a lesser level of surveillance. So what was once considered a totalitarian dystopia is now considered OK? I'm not saying we have TOTAL control now, but I am saying we need to regulate the new technologies in a way that is beneficial to the majority of people, while still maintaining a level of privacy and liberty and not going overboard with digital surveillance. Traditional policing still has a place.

[73 coupe]

i know this is unrelated but is this the pub section ? , if so are there any semi/retired mechanics around ??? i gotta phatt 302 needs sum TLC as for this particular topic lol ,
let progress roll on

[GavL]

Originally Posted by john3136

<Un_Informed_Rant>
With government support, they decide to blitz people going "just over" the limit.

They plan to breatho everyone leaving the MCG carpark (I can see the healines now: Police harassed by angry mob still trying to leave the MCG carpark at 2 am ;-)

I'd rather not be taken out by a drunken bogan driving his dump of a VL Commodore with no breaks or lights home from the football :P

If they don't like it, they can catch the train in out, hell it'll be faster anyway! Leaving the MCG carparks is hell when it isn't a grand final!

[balthazarr]

As I've said over and over in this thread, I'm not against the idea of automating detection of unregistered vehicles, snapping their picture and sending the owner a whopping great fine. Great. There should be more of it - if only because if I pay my rego, WTF shouldn't everyone?

My big problem with this, is the implementation of the technology - that is, how they're planning to use it.

Here's another scenario where this technology - as they're currently using, or intending to use, it - will cause an innocent person to be flagged down at every opportunity:

Say your idiot partner/friend/brother/sister/father/mother/whoever gets done for drink driving in their car, and they face an automatic 12-month suspension of their licence. They can either:

1. Drive unlicensed;
2. Let the car sit for 12+ months unused;
3. Sell the car; or
4. Lend it to someone.

Let's say they pick option 4 - now whenever this person drives this car and one of these scanners is used, they're going to be stopped and given the third degree - for no reason whatsoever. Surely this is wrong.

[mainyard]

This is a good way to nab those who are un-licenced and those driving un-registered vehicles.

However:
It should not be used to identify those with low points or previous records, as targeting for the sake of a record suggests that a man can never change his ways. (guilty until proven innocent)

The demerit system is run by the RTA (in nsw), the police force has no control over demerits whatsoever.

So, why do the police even need to know how many demerit points you have?
They should only need to know whether you are licenced or not and what your class of licence is.

It only opens the door to possible abuse/misuse.

Many a time I have heard "I've been driving for x amount of years and have a clean record."

That just means that you've been lucky and haven't been caught yet...

[xtremerus]

If your car has Rego and you have a licence, what is the problem.

[xtremerus]

As a side issue, they will also known if you have a firearms licence

[ltd]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I reckon this was aimed at me. Not that it matters, but I'm clean. No demerits, driver's licence expires 2011, and car rego isn't due until the end of October.

There's a famous quote (probably) by Martin Niemöller - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... - I'm not waiting until they come for me before I speak out. (Read the quote... I don't think they're coming for me.)

Below is an excellent (though American-centric) article by Bruce Shneier, a well-respected security specialist, on this very topic found at http://www.schneier.com/essay-147.html. I've added my own emphasis.

Still doesn't mitigate the fact that there is an ever increasing number of people driving unlicensed or unregistered vehicles. You can't compare the USA to here, their registration is about one tenth of what ours is. Back home, I don't believe people will be unfairly targeted, police just don't have the resources. This system is basically designed to access a live database and cross reference vehicles/colours/makes/rego status etc all in the blink of an eye, as opposed to the old way of having to physically enter the data. It is not a bad thing.
The risks however on our society for people who don't register or licence themselves, as well as the cost to the community for those who try to do the right thing is too expensive to ignore. What’s more, doing nothing will only encourage more people to break the law (yes, it's actually breaking the law) as it becomes seen as harmless and/or victimless crime. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.
If you don't want to conform to regulatory checks which ensure your own and other peoples safety, then catch the bus.

Frankly, this whole "the police are going to abuse power" crap is getting so old, so fast that it is completely reminiscent of the Safe-T -Cam scare campaign that proffered an alleged big brother spying into your car when really it only monitored speeding trucks.
As evidenced by a lot of threads I’ve seen of late, some of the attitudes to police in these forums absolutely stink and in many cases border on paranoid schizophrenia. Newsflash, we live in a society that has rules. The rules are designed to protect your rights; the right to live free of persecution, the right to live in peace, the right to protection from harm. Resultantly, we have to follow rules to afford these protections. The police are there to enforce the rules for the greater good, not your individual circumstance nor proclivity. So, a police camera will photograph my number plate and check to see if I’m breaking the law. Good. If the technology proves to cut the number of idiots who flout the laws then great.

I’d much rather live in a society where my basic liberties are protected by police, and I firmly suggest that those individuals suffering paranoid schizophrenia on matters of police take both of their personalities and get stuffed. Cops are tops – end of story.

[kircher]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

If your car has Rego and you have a licence, what is the problem.

The problem is not how it is used to find unregistered vehicles, but how it would be used for other purposes ie. non-random checks etc. Sooner or later the technology will be good and cheap enough to be fitted to police cars, and it's use in that situation needs to be regulated.

[kircher]

Originally Posted by ltd

Still doesn't mitigate the fact that there is an ever increasing number of people driving unlicensed or unregistered vehicles. You can't compare the USA to here, their registration is about one tenth of what ours is. Back home, I don't believe people will be unfairly targeted, police just don't have the resources. This system is basically designed to access a live database and cross reference vehicles/colours/makes/rego status etc all in the blink of an eye, as opposed to the old way of having to physically enter the data. It is not a bad thing.
The risks however on our society for people who don't register or licence themselves, as well as the cost to the community for those who try to do the right thing is too expensive to ignore. What’s more, doing nothing will only encourage more people to break the law (yes, it's actually breaking the law) as it becomes seen as harmless and/or victimless crime. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.
If you don't want to conform to regulatory checks which ensure your own and other peoples safety, then catch the bus.

Frankly, this whole "the police are going to abuse power" crap is getting so old, so fast that it is completely reminiscent of the Safe-T -Cam scare campaign that proffered an alleged big brother spying into your car when really it only monitored speeding trucks.
As evidenced by a lot of threads I’ve seen of late, some of the attitudes to police in these forums absolutely stink and in many cases border on paranoid schizophrenia. Newsflash, we live in a society that has rules. The rules are designed to protect your rights; the right to live free of persecution, the right to live in peace, the right to protection from harm. Resultantly, we have to follow rules to afford these protections. The police are there to enforce the rules for the greater good, not your individual circumstance nor proclivity. So, a police camera will photograph my number plate and check to see if I’m breaking the law. Good. If the technology proves to cut the number of idiots who flout the laws then great.

I’d much rather live in a society where my basic liberties are protected by police, and I firmly suggest that those individuals suffering paranoid schizophrenia on matters of police take both of their personalities and get stuffed. Cops are tops – end of story.

First of all. I don't know where you got the idea anyone was bad mouthing police in this thread. As far as I know police officers didn't invent this technology or implement it, they were just told "hey boys, use this to find unregistered vehicles" in which case they are just doing their jobs. My issues are with bureaucrats and politicians.

Secondly, for the fourth time, I and others with questions with regard to this technology have no problem with it being used to find unregistered vehicles. Period. But it's use once made more accessible to the greater police force, eg. in all police vehicles NEEDS to be regulated to protect the privacy and liberty of citizens. There may already be wheels in motion for this though, but somehow I doubt it. The situation where it could potentially be used to make non-random checks is the issue we should all be concerned about. I have been brought up to believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Proving innocence should not be made with unwarranted checks.

Hypothetically if new laws to protect us were implemented which allowed unwarranted random checks of houses and personal property how many people would object? I would say most would because its an invasion of privacy, regardless of the amount of drug dealers, murderers and child porn addicts it found. This is why we have laws to regulate power. I believe cars are no different. Just because someone has a history doesn't mean they should be unfairly targeted for what I have been calling non-random checks.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think a lot of people misinterpret my intentions, and why I have questions.

Kircher

[kircher]

Originally Posted by ltd

Cops are tops – end of story.

Well most cops probably are. But I have encountered police who didn't help me when they should have, so no, it's not the end of story. But that's not the point of this thread.

Kircher

[ltd]

Originally Posted by kircher

First of all. I don't know where you got the idea anyone was bad mouthing police in this thread. As far as I know police officers didn't invent this technology or implement it, they were just told "hey boys, use this to find unregistered vehicles" in which case they are just doing their jobs. My issues are with bureaucrats and politicians.

Prey tell, what do you think you infer when you say things like this;

Originally Posted by kircher

Secondly, for the fourth time, I and others with questions with regard to this technology have no problem with it being used to find unregistered vehicles. Period. But it's use once made more accessible to the greater police force, eg. in all police vehicles NEEDS to be regulated to protect the privacy and liberty of citizens.

Oh OK, so you're saying that you're not bashing cops but then accusing them of abusing powers. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by kircher

There may already be wheels in motion for this though, but somehow I doubt it. The situation where it could potentially be used to make non-random checks is the issue we should all be concerned about. I have been brought up to believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Proving innocence should not be made with unwarranted checks.

FFS, this is preliminary work designed to capture more people who are actually breaqking the law, and you try to defend the indefensible?

Originally Posted by kircher

Hypothetically if new laws to protect us were implemented which allowed unwarranted random checks of houses and personal property how many people would object? I would say most would because its an invasion of privacy, regardless of the amount of drug dealers, murderers and child porn addicts it found. This is why we have laws to regulate power. I believe cars are no different. Just because someone has a history doesn't mean they should be unfairly targeted for what I have been calling non-random checks.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think a lot of people misinterpret my intentions, and why I have questions.

Kircher

Mate, that is the silliest comparisons I have seen in my entire life. What we are talking about here is akin to an officer driving by your house and glancing at it as he drives by. No invasion of privacy, no personal details looked into, no nothing. Further, your house does not need to be annually licenced to be where it is, nor does it have to have a licence holder at its command. Your house also is unlikely to smash in to another house, reverse and bugger off without swapping details so again, silly comparison.

My point here is simple;
The technology does not profile someone based on a vehicle registration. The camera only highlights a vehicle once it has detected that its registration is invalid.
As for cops allegedly abusing the power by stopping people and checking them; moot point completely. Police have been stopping and checking people for years for drugs, firearms, licences, burnouts, and hundreds of other reasons. Once they stop you, they ask for your licence so they can see that you have one, and then check it on their computer. Furthermore, they also check your rego to see who owns the car, whether the car's registered. I don't get how some think they'd need it the new camera given they have their own on board computers anyway. If they wanted to abuse power as some of you predict, they could do it now.
As for being stopped occassionally, don't complain, HTFU about it. We all went through/are going through it now.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by kircher

Well most cops probably are. But I have encountered police who didn't help me when they should have, so no, it's not the end of story. But that's not the point of this thread.

Kircher

No I beg to differ.
Your post is very illuminating asa to why you have your point of view.

[jasjul]

Originally Posted by EDManual

My mate has 2 similar subarus, one is registered, the other is well, a bush basher. Drives them both :-) And cops dont have a clue. Even if pulled over, as luckily rego stickers can be transplanted so easily! For a laugh he should drive past one of these cop setups!

It appears that you find your mates behaviour amusing, what happens if he's involved in an accident? Then all will come out, because insurance investigators will certainly go as far as checking VIN/chassis numbers to confirm vehicle is what it is.

Back to topic, a road is a public area, so if you are breaking laws and are caught, bad luck. IMO having a licence is a privilege not a right, if by continually breaking laws you lose that privilege, bad luck. I personally don't want my wife, children taken out by a drunken disqualified driver, so whatever keeps them off the road works for me.

As for houses, they're your private domain, so different laws/legislation applies.

[kircher]

LTD, why is it such a big deal that I think that there should be laws to protect peoples fundamental rights to freedom from harassment and right to some level of privacy with regard to digital surveillance. Once again you say I'm cop bashing. If you read what I said and even your bold highlighting of what I said, I haven't accused anyone of anything. I just said there should be some way to protect those basic most fundamental rights we should have. I am no lawyer or politician, but the fact remains that Australia has no Bill of Rights. This basically means that anything can be written into law and the citizens that make up a country can't do anything about it and the High Court can't be used to challenge such laws that infringe on our rights. Please reread what I said and see I haven't accused anyone of anything. Only highlighting potential problems. Keyword there is potential

I don't deny that it is preliminary work designed to catch offenders. Ok. This is fine with me. But we all know technology evolves and sooner or later all police cars will have a camera that instantly reads number plates and displays the details of the car and the owner. The technology is here. It just has to be used. Now what I am saying is this information should not be used to bias a decision to pull a car over for a check or not if the driver is licensed and the car registered. I understand cars already have computers where you type the number plate in and check up manually. I also believe there would be some sort of discretion used there. eg - cop sees car which looks suss, cop checks number plate, cop then decides whether or not to pull car over based on the information they get from the number plate check. With this other way, ie. when number plate checking it is possible that entire personal records could be displayed on a monitor in the police car displaying the details of basically every person that drives past. Shouldn't there be some rules regarding the use of this information? A person who is properly licensed and registered should not be pulled over just because they have a previous record, unless the person is doing an illegal activity at the time, in which case they'd be pulled over regardless if the police had a number plate checking system. Also have you ever considered the fact that if I'm properly licensed and registered I don't want my name, address and driving record flashing up every time I drive past a police car? I value privacy and there are others part of this democracy who agree with me. It's a shame though that voting will not fix things like this. Hence why we should have a Bill of Rights.

As far as my analogy goes with unwarranted checks of houses being akin to glancing into houses. I disagree. Glancing into a house does not give you the name and history of its owner, nor do you have house scanners instantly scanning and displaying the details of its occupants. And cops check people for drugs, firearms, burnouts and other things based on evidence ie if a person is seen doing a burnout they get pulled over for doing a burnout.

I guess you're a cop? I don't mean to offend you. I gather you take a lot of pride in being a good and honest law enforcer. But there are problems with corruption and laziness within any workforce. The police aren't exempt from this. So with response to your comment about me saying that not all cops are tops, you don't know my individual circumstances of when I actually needed the help of police, so don't make assumptions about why I have my point of view

Edit: I realise houses are private domain, and roads are public domain. But so is a footpath/shopping mall, but we don't have identity and record scanners for walking on public property do we?

Kircher

[WILDB]

I fully approve of this system.

Having recently been involved in serious motorcycyle accident resulting in multiple injuries to myself only to find out the at fault driver is unlicenced, uninsured and driving an unregistered car. Anyone who has gone through a similar situation knows the hurdles you have to go through to get anything.

With this system more of these scum are getting taken off the road.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by kircher

LTD, why is it such a big deal that I think that there should be laws to protect peoples fundamental rights to freedom from harassment and right to some level of privacy with regard to digital surveillance. Once again you say I'm cop bashing. If you read what I said and even your bold highlighting of what I said, I haven't accused anyone of anything. I just said there should be some way to protect those basic most fundamental rights we should have. I am no lawyer or politician, but the fact remains that Australia has no Bill of Rights. This basically means that anything can be written into law and the citizens that make up a country can't do anything about it and the High Court can't be used to challenge such laws that infringe on our rights. Please reread what I said and see I haven't accused anyone of anything. Only highlighting potential problems. Keyword there is potential

I don't deny that it is preliminary work designed to catch offenders. Ok. This is fine with me. But we all know technology evolves and sooner or later all police cars will have a camera that instantly reads number plates and displays the details of the car and the owner. The technology is here. It just has to be used. Now what I am saying is this information should not be used to bias a decision to pull a car over for a check or not if the driver is licensed and the car registered. I understand cars already have computers where you type the number plate in and check up manually. I also believe there would be some sort of discretion used there. eg - cop sees car which looks suss, cop checks number plate, cop then decides whether or not to pull car over based on the information they get from the number plate check. With this other way, ie. when number plate checking it is possible that entire personal records could be displayed on a monitor in the police car displaying the details of basically every person that drives past. Shouldn't there be some rules regarding the use of this information? A person who is properly licensed and registered should not be pulled over just because they have a previous record, unless the person is doing an illegal activity at the time, in which case they'd be pulled over regardless if the police had a number plate checking system. Also have you ever considered the fact that if I'm properly licensed and registered I don't want my name, address and driving record flashing up every time I drive past a police car? I value privacy and there are others part of this democracy who agree with me. It's a shame though that voting will not fix things like this. Hence why we should have a Bill of Rights.

As far as my analogy goes with unwarranted checks of houses being akin to glancing into houses. I disagree. Glancing into a house does not give you the name and history of its owner, nor do you have house scanners instantly scanning and displaying the details of its occupants. And cops check people for drugs, firearms, burnouts and other things based on evidence ie if a person is seen doing a burnout they get pulled over for doing a burnout.

I guess you're a cop? I don't mean to offend you. I gather you take a lot of pride in being a good and honest law enforcer. But there are problems with corruption and laziness within any workforce. The police aren't exempt from this. So with response to your comment about me saying that not all cops are tops, you don't know my individual circumstances of when I actually needed the help of police, so don't make assumptions about why I have my point of view

Edit: I realise houses are private domain, and roads are public domain. But so is a footpath/shopping mall, but we don't have identity and record scanners for walking on public property do we?

Kircher

Kircher, let me clarify one thing to you before I respond; I have not singled you out, I have responded to your quotation.
Now, you might disagree with cop bashing fair enough, but you are insinuating that cops are going to misuse any information they have.
My point to you is this; if cops were going to misuse your information, wouldn't they have done it by now?

Further, not every cop car is going to have this technology, its simply not feasible for a cop to watch a screen of rolling data for every car that goes by him whilst trying to drive. To that end, I put to you the police computer which allows manual checking so ergo, no need for this system in mobile police cars. As I said, there will be no profiling done from this system and not because of a rule, but because it's impossible for any person to process that much information that quickly.

The advantages simply outweigh any disadvantage you could name, and as such getting serial offenders who flout the law off the roads can only ever be a good thing. Time and time again we see carnage on the streets, how would you like your loved one to be killed in a crash because the other unlicenced driver didn't render assistance or call for help, as he was trying to flee the scene? On 3 seperate occassions in NSW this has happened, and finally someone is being proactive in getting the number of unlicenced drivers and unregistered vehicles off the road. About time.

I am not a cop, was never a cop nor am interested in being a cop. Frankly, cops don't get paid enough and this persecution complex by paranoid people about invasions of rights is the very reason policing has been hampered through stupid legislation. This new bit of equipment is a win for the majority who do the right thing, we shouldn't hijack its integration with conspiracy theories from snivelling libertarians.

[kircher]

Yeah, well I think we've come to an understanding of each other LTD. I agree wholeheartedly that if it removes dangerous vehicles/drivers from the road, then it's good. I just hope that the proper measures are made to protect the privacy of people, such as erasure of any recorded information or whatever after a certain amount of time has lapsed, and that it is used in a way only to remove these dangerous vehicles and drivers, without adding any additional level of intrusion into the legal operation of vehicles on public roads.

I am liberal (not the Liberal party) by definition with many of my beliefs though, but I don't know if I'd call myself a libertarian. I believe in minimal government and abhor over regulation, within reason. Remember "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. This is why we need regulation of the people who wield the power.

[FGII-XR6]

1 day or 1 year whats the difference the car is unregistered and no CTP cover

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

What about those forgetful few who don't watch their expiry dates and whose rego renewals are late in the mail? Do they cop this too? You know, one day or two out of reg...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by kircher

Yeah, well I think we've come to an understanding of each other LTD. I agree wholeheartedly that if it removes dangerous vehicles/drivers from the road, then it's good. I just hope that the proper measures are made to protect the privacy of people, such as erasure of any recorded information or whatever after a certain amount of time has lapsed, and that it is used in a way only to remove these dangerous vehicles and drivers, without adding any additional level of intrusion into the legal operation of vehicles on public roads.

I am liberal (not the Liberal party) by definition with many of my beliefs though, but I don't know if I'd call myself a libertarian. I believe in minimal government and abhor over regulation, within reason. Remember "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton. This is why we need regulation of the people who wield the power.

Agreed.
The good thing about this recognition is that the car is stopped by policemen, not by photograph and fine in the post 2 weeks later.
Now if they can only figure out a way to police idiots who fail to indicate, merge or drive terribly because they're using a mobile phone.