UK-Spy satellites will give you a ticket now

[cultcross]

It's not 'being spied on from space' or 'satellites giving you tickets' or any other nonsense.

So a driver can't get a ticket based on this thing's say-so?

The 'satellite' is not giving you a ticket. It's a bloody GPS satellite, nothing more scary or sinister than that. My phone and satnav are both in communication with one on a regular basis. The OP article make sit seem like there's Chloe O'Brien watching you on satellite feed as you hit 35mph in a school zone.

 

[tharpdevenport]

No one has yet explained how driver's are "robbed" or how "freedoms are lost".

I can't speak of the UK law and what freedoms they have, but if it is anything like over here...


No privacy -- even if it's just the top of your car. And "Innocent until proven guilty" goes down the toilet if you are watched until you purposely or accidently break the law; you're nothing more than a criminal in waiting, which is what they must think in order to use these, after all -- they already have cops to do this job. Cameras the same.

Again, assuming the UK is like the US:
YOU pay part of your money in taxes to use the road, including the salary of the police, which means you own part of that road; being fined for abusing something you own a piece of, is like arresting someone for breaking into their own out-right owned home.

And there's no real way to know if the system has been tampered with to pruposely get you ticketed. Over here in the US, Lockheed Martin set up cameras at lights (I think it was California) and they purposely made the yellow lights shorter so more people would end up running a red one, and getting a ticket. They got caught, thankfully.


Privacy being lost yet again (isn't it the UK that has a system of street cameras in many, many places? Creapy), and people are making excuses for it; one at a time until there will be no peels on the banana of freedom.

Also, you are being treated like a criminal in advance of a crime. A government who thinks you are a bad guy when they are not looking, and sets up a system to spy on you to catch you in the act (again, whether purposely or accidently) and then fine you ... that's one to be VERY wary of.






Of course, this is all beside the point when it comes to bad, repeat offenders: some of you just need to slow the fuck down and watch out for other drivers.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

no peels on the banana of freedom.

The Banana of Freedom...

 

[JoeZhang]

YOU pay part of your money in taxes to use the road, including the salary of the police, which means you own part of that road; being fined for abusing something you own a piece of, is like arresting someone for breaking into their own out-right owned home.

You have no ownerships of the road, you have access to them if you a licence, a lawful car and insurance.

Privacy being lost yet again

You have no right on privacy on a public road.

No privacy -- even if it's just the top of your car.

Oh lordy, for the slow at the back, there is nothing in space taking pictures of the top of your car.

There is a Camera at point A - using GPS, they know where the camera is.

There is a Camera at point B - using GPS, they know where the camera is.

They know the distance between Camera A and Camera B - if you pass A and in 4 minutes pass Camera B that is ten miles away, they know you are speeding...

 

[cultcross]

No privacy -- even if it's just the top of your car.

There is no expectation of privacy in public. People can see you because you're out of doors, get over it.

And "Innocent until proven guilty" goes down the toilet if you are watched until you purposely or accidently break the law;

Why? You're still innocent until proven guilty even if someone was 'watching' you until you committed an offence. a) You'd still have to commit it and b) they'd still have to prove it. So how has 'innocent until proven guilty gone out the window'?

Again, assuming the UK is like the US:
YOU pay part of your money in taxes to use the road, including the salary of the police, which means you own part of that road; being fined for abusing something you own a piece of, is like arresting someone for breaking into their own out-right owned home.

Ridiculous. By that argument, there should be no traffic law and everyone can do whatever they want on the roads, consequences be damned.
The rules are in place because it wasn't just your taxes that paid for the road, it was everyone else's. By taking a licence and driving on the public road, you agree to abide by the rules governing it to allow all the public to use it safely.

And there's no real way to know if the system has been tampered with to pruposely get you ticketed.

Other than common sense.

Over here in the US, Lockheed Martin set up cameras at lights (I think it was California) and they purposely made the yellow lights shorter so more people would end up running a red one, and getting a ticket. They got caught, thankfully.

We don't farm out tickets to companies. Only a warranted constable and certain other public officials can issue a ticket, regardless of cause.

Privacy being lost yet again (isn't it the UK that has a system of street cameras in many, many places? Creapy), and people are making excuses for it; one at a time until there will be no peels on the banana of freedom.

What privacy is being lost, specifically? The privacy to drive your car on a public road in broad daylight without being seen by anyone? I wasn't aware that was a protected privacy, myself. Kind of difficult to enforce, that one.

Also, you are being treated like a criminal in advance of a crime.

In what way? Being filmed or photographed is not limited to criminals, you are out of doors you have no expectation of not being seen. What's the difference between a camera seeing you and a random member of public or a cop seeing you? The main difference is that 99.99% of the time, no-one will actually see the camera tape, every camera in Britain generates 24hrs of footage every day, no-one sits there and watches it all.

Of course, this is all beside the point when it comes to bad, repeat offenders: some of you just need to slow the fuck down and watch out for other drivers.

Why? Their taxes paid for the road, paid for the cops salaries, why can't they drive how they want on the road they paid for?

 

[John Picard]

No one has yet explained how driver's are "robbed" or how "freedoms are lost".

I can't speak of the UK law and what freedoms they have, but if it is anything like over here...


No privacy -- even if it's just the top of your car. And "Innocent until proven guilty" goes down the toilet if you are watched until you purposely or accidentally break the law; you're nothing more than a criminal in waiting, which is what they must think in order to use these, after all -- they already have cops to do this job. Cameras the same.

I don't understand this statement.

Again, assuming the UK is like the US:
YOU pay part of your money in taxes to use the road, including the salary of the police, which means you own part of that road; being fined for abusing something you own a piece of, is like arresting someone for breaking into their own out-right owned home.

Not exactly. The roads, police, and fire department are all part of what's called "the public good" in that it benefits everyone. One does not "own" the road anymore than one is the "boss" of a policeman or fireman.

And there's no real way to know if the system has been tampered with to purposely get you ticketed. Over here in the US, Lockheed Martin set up cameras at lights (I think it was California) and they purposely made the yellow lights shorter so more people would end up running a red one, and getting a ticket. They got caught, thankfully.

That statement defeated itself. You stated there's no way to tell if the system is tampered, and then explain how Lockheed got caught. Eventually, they get caught.
Privacy being lost yet again (isn't it the UK that has a system of street cameras in many, many places? Creapy), and people are making excuses for it; one at a time until there will be no peels on the banana of freedom.

Also, you are being treated like a criminal in advance of a crime. A government who thinks you are a bad guy when they are not looking, and sets up a system to spy on you to catch you in the act (again, whether purposely or accidentally) and then fine you ... that's one to be VERY wary of.

No more than a police officer who pulls over onto the median behind the bridge support, or into a ditch behind trees. It's basic cat and mouse.

Of course, this is all beside the point when it comes to bad, repeat offenders: some of you just need to slow the fuck down and watch out for other drivers.

That statement I agree with, except in a lot of cases, many drivers need to learn to STAY RIGHT.

 

[cultcross]

Oh lordy, for the slow at the back, there is nothing in space taking pictures of the top of your car.

There is a Camera at point A - using GPS, they know where the camera is.

There is a Camera at point B - using GPS, they know where the camera is.

They know the distance between Camera A and Camera B - if you pass A and in 4 minutes pass Camera B that is ten miles away, they know you are speeding...

Thank you. How tharp et al think you can identify a vehicle from the top anyway is beyond me. Can you identify individual vehicles on Google satellite view? Cos I don't see a top licence plate, myself.

 

[JoeZhang]

Oh lordy, for the slow at the back, there is nothing in space taking pictures of the top of your car.

There is a Camera at point A - using GPS, they know where the camera is.

There is a Camera at point B - using GPS, they know where the camera is.

They know the distance between Camera A and Camera B - if you pass A and in 4 minutes pass Camera B that is ten miles away, they know you are speeding...

Thank you. How tharp et al think you can identify a vehicle from the top anyway is beyond me. Can you identify individual vehicles on Google satellite view? Cos I don't see a top licence plate, myself.

To be fair, that Telegraph story is awful, it makes it sound like they have launched a satellite specifically for this purpose rather than making use of boring old GPS.

 

[John Picard]

YOU pay part of your money in taxes to use the road, including the salary of the police, which means you own part of that road; being fined for abusing something you own a piece of, is like arresting someone for breaking into their own out-right owned home.

You have no ownerships of the road, you have access to them if you a licence, a lawful car and insurance.

Thank you for catching that. I get fed up with people screaming about "LOSING MY FREEDOMS" yet get enraged when I point out that in order to drive on a public road they need: license; insurance; tags; registration; and then the vehicle has many different laws it must conform to (ie height of bumpers, safety restraints, unobstructed view, etc).

There is no "RIGHT" to drive.

 

[bigdaddy]

What's to stop the government from using these satellites to spy on people?

"You are just being paranoid!"

The government should fear the people, it should never be the other way and it's already going down that road.

In Massachusetts they want to track where your car is driving so they can charge a tax on you per mile, what's to stop the UK from saying "We are only doing this too people who break the law" and then go after anyone they don't like and just accuse them of breaking the law?

 

[cultcross]

What's to stop the government from using these satellites to spy on people?

How many times do we have to say it?

It. is. a. G. P. S. satellite.

Can the government spy on you through your satnav?

 

[John Picard]

What's to stop the government from using these satellites to spy on people?

"You are just being paranoid!"

The government should fear the people, it should never be the other way and it's already going down that road.

In Massachusetts they want to track where your car is driving so they can charge a tax on you per mile, what's to stop the UK from saying "We are only doing this too people who break the law" and then go after anyone they don't like and just accuse them of breaking the law?

People should be charged according to the amount of usage on the road, so in essence, a tax per mile is fair and just. Fuel taxes don't go far enough. Sorry, but this is still baloney that the Government is invading people's privacy if a mileage tax goes in effect.

 

[cultcross]

In Massachusetts they want to track where your car is driving so they can charge a tax on you per mile,

I'd welcome that here. Currently the Road Tax setup charges you based on your car's engine size. Person A could have a big gas guzzling car but drive to the shops once a week, Person B could have a 1.1 Ford Ka but drive 90 miles a day; Person B is polluting a lot more and 'using up' a lot more road, but gets an enormous discount on his contribution to those roads. It would be much fairer if that tax was instead based on usage as well.
Or, imho, ditch road tax completely and raise the petrol tax on the forecourt to compensate - petrol usage is directly proportional to how much you actually use your car and how much it pollutes. So the tax is fairly levied against those who are actually driving on the roads the most, without the need for any surveillance at all, be it tax discs or mileage. But they'd never go for that because people would ignore the free road tax and just have brain implosions over HIGH PETROL PRICES!!1!1!

what's to stop the UK from saying "We are only doing this too people who break the law"

Our government would use correct grammar.