Tiburon Wants To Photograph Every Car Entering And Leaving... But Don't Worry About Your Privacy
from the well,-phew... dept
Tiburon is a nice little wealthy coastal town a little ways north from where I happen to live. It's a cozy place to go for a nice meal out or something -- usually somewhere I'll take visiting friends or relatives. It's certainly not a place where you'd expect there to be a big crime problem, and, indeed, the facts seem to bear that out. But, apparently, that's not stopping the local gov't from deciding to set up cameras to photograph and record every car entering and leaving the town. It will also record and use the license plate info. If that sounds like a bit of an invasion of privacy, well, the town's Manager, Peggy Curran, insists you're just paranoid:"As long as you don't arrive in a stolen vehicle or go on a crime spree while you're here, your anonymity will be preserved. We don't care who you are and we don't know who you are."Actually, if you didn't care, you wouldn't be recording the info, now would you?
This is really just a variation on the "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" sort of claim. It's a fallacy that privacy is only about if you're doing something wrong. So, for folks up in Tiburon, who wants to follow Peggy Curran with a camera when she's walking around? As long as she doesn't do anything illegal, her anonymity will be preserved. No one cares who she is. They would just be making sure she doesn't go on a crime spree or steal a car. By her own logic, that's perfectly reasonable, right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: peggy curran, privacy, surveillance, tiburon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
would make a case for stalkers everywhere
It's absurd "We'll record everything, but don't worry, if you got nothing to hide, there won't be any trouble."
Besides what will happen if there is a coupe on the government, and we end up in a totalitarian state for real (which I think most of 'The West' already is) / dictatorship. Suddenly, everybody has something to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
Aegon? They're a bunch of ass munches, and actually fits you're past posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
The Netherlands office for AIG, perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
btw, nice find about me going to Sensation White, which was awesome, if you can, and like dance/trance music, I'd say go to a Sensation party. :)
Only downside for me was that I picked up the flu there. (luckily not the mexican version of it)
Meh, as Steve Rambam said at a HOPE conference: "Privacy is dead, get over it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
Steve always lies. Steve says things that he wishes were true, but Steve doesn't have the full scoop. He just parrots what his holders want him to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: would make a case for stalkers everywhere
Even though Armstrong and his piles of money bought a business my own mother wanted to buy.
I have very few good words for Armstrong, and Rabo continues to be an interesting desire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misplaced Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misplaced Privacy
Someone should go in public, and record the hell out of this individual. Dedicate a group of 5-10 people to record his/her every movement and watch how much she enjoys it.
People always rationalize it because they externalize it like "it's not me, it's for the bad folks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misplaced Privacy
So what exactly is Mike's argument? Is he arguing that this town's actions are violating people's privacy rights? He's certainly not correct about that. You have limited privacy rights when you're in public and it's perfectly legal to take pictures of you and your car when you're in public.
But yet he apparently wants to retaliate against the town's Manager by photographing her in public. Which again is perfectly legal and in no way violates her privacy rights. Man, I'm just so damn confused! Why was this even posted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misplaced Privacy
I can't speak for Mike, but it seems like the problem he is raising has more to do with the town manager's justification for the program (ie - if you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about) than the program itself.
That said... I think we should be suspect of programs such as this one. The program is certainly legal under our current privacy law regime. That doesn't necessarily mean it's something we shouldn't be concerned about. The norm that we have no privacy interests in things that occur in public is relatively antiquated and rings hollow in the Internet age in which all of this information can be forever cataloged and easily accessed. Sure, if I walk across a street, I have no right to keep that information concealed. Does that mean that someone should be able to follow me everywhere I go and publish that information on the Internet? I don't have the answer to that question, but it is certainly one that deserve some serious consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misplaced Privacy
1. Yes, CT is right that my bigger concern is the lame justification of the manager. I'm not saying it's against the law. I'm just questioning the rationale.
2. While lots of people are saying that "well, you're in public, you have no privacy," this is a bit different. I would absolutely 100% agree if it were just someone privately taking their own photos. The problem is that the gov't had a big database where they can link up those photos/license plate numbers to personal information. At that point, it's no longer about "well you were out in public" it's about the gov't combining public info with private info... and that's potentially a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misplaced Privacy
I think a round-the-clock public surveillance of the city manager is in order here, with the results put on a web site for all to see. Let her know what Paris Hilton feels like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what?
for you police state motherlovers, karma's gonna a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll admit it's a little paranoid. I'm not sure why white communities with so little crime are so paranoid about crime.
But if Google can drive around taking everyone's public picture, I don't see how this is any worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides that, it gets stored in a central database, that should then also be publically available...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once all that data is recorded, what's to stop anyone with access to it, or to the individual(s) in control of it, from using it for nefarious purposes. Spying on friends, family, opponents. Abusing it to control or blackmail them. Think about all the things that one COULD capture on film while taking those photos and how that COULD be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Indeed. As I said above, I didn't say it was illegal. My problem is very much with the justification of it.
That said, the fact that it's perfectly legal to take photos is one thing... for an individual. When it's the gov't who has access to a database to connect your license plate back to information about you, we're no longer talking about "public" info. We're talking about potentially using public info to connect it to private info. And that's a lot more worrisome.
But if Google can drive around taking everyone's public picture, I don't see how this is any worse.
Google doesn't have the DMV database.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy concerns and the "I've got nothing to hide" fallacy
It seems that you're increasingly focusing your attention to matters involving invasions of privacy. I applaud these efforts, as it is an area of growing importance and one of great interest to me. If you're looking for some great reading material on privacy issues, you should really check out Daniel Solove's work. He is the Larry Lessig of the privacy law realm.
One of his best papers exposes the specious logic underlying the claim that "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
It's available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
Abstract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reuse by?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reuse by?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Expectations are not set by law, but by precedent and past experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a bad precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would suggest a new tinfoil hat, and stay home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Awesome. Thanks for that gem of knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, I've been a *staunch* defender that your right to privacy is not there when you're in public, and that people and private co's have the right to take a photo. Haven't you seen what I've written about the people up in arms about Google street view? I think Street View is perfectly legal.
The issue here is (a) with the town's defense of the plan, which is questionable and (b) the fact that the gov't had a database that can connect the public info to private info. I can take the photo of your license plate, but I don't have a database that tells me additional info about you.
That's why this is more of a concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe you think this is a good way to spend your tax dollars ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teaching Peggy Curran a lesson
Of course, if she's doing nothing wrong, she won't object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teaching Peggy Curran a lesson
Grow up, your answer sounds like a spoiled child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Teaching Peggy Curran a lesson
Second, even if we naively stipulated for the purpose of argument that it wouldn't become public (which stretches credulity to breaking point, I know, but bear with me, fellow readers, while I educate those lesser creatures among us), then of course we must ask who will have access to it in private. And the obvious answer to that of course is "anyone with sufficient clout in any law enforcement agency", which is a very large group of people and one that is well-known to contain people with agendas -- political, social, religious, economic, and personal. And as we have seen, repeatedly, many of them are not above using putatively-"private" information to pursue those agendas.
There is no such thing as "private" information once it's in the hands of any government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teaching Peggy Curran a lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(playing devil's advocate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not, it automatically issues a fixed penalty fine which increases over time should it not be paid sufficiently quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry we can't help you. Why not petition your local English legal represenative... What the devil are they called? Lords, Dukes or Jesters? In any case, it's a problem you have and we don't own.
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK London Congestion Charge camera's
Also in response to jjmsans' post, you are lucky you are in the US. In the UK the police CAN stop and search you with no reason more compelling than they thought you might be up to something you should not be. Most people seem not to care much however...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UK London Congestion Charge cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to satisfy you......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However the real issue here is protecting the data! Stalkers that get access to these pictures would be horrendous. jealous Ex girlfriends, people keeping track of your movements so they can break into your house, etc.
Perhaps a computer program that would read the license plates and input them into a database. Since you can guess fairly well where the plate will be in the pictures and the letters & numbers are fairly uniform it should be mostly accurate. Have a paper trail for each and every search for a license plate from the database (Who authorized it, who did it, why was it done, when, ect).
Baring computer programs perhaps have a police department from a remote location do the data input, this is to greatly reduce the chance that these people would have motives for keeping track of common people in the area they are viewing.
Mark each picture with make, model, color, license number. Once again extensive paper trail that the public can access as to what the police search for. Delay search records by a reasonable amount of time (maybe 3 months?) to protect investigations.
A lot of pipe dreams I know. The cold reality is these pictures will be used in ways that are not legal most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reminds me of "snow crash"
in this futuristic setting, the CIA has become a for-profit entity called the Central Intelligence Company and hires freelance surveillance agents called "stringers" observe and report activity that might be of interest. the idea hasn't panned out so well thanks to overzealous stringers who collect too much data:
"The CIC brass can't stand these guys because they upload staggering quantities of useless information to the database, on the off chance that some of it will eventually be useful. It's like writing down the license number of every car you see on your way to work each morning, just in case one of them will be involved in a hit-and-run accident. Even the CIC database can only hold so much garbage."
collecting data is easy, interpreting it is not. in the intelligence community this is known as collection and analysis, and in IT it's called logging and parsing. sure you can automate the search and format process (like IT groups do with server and network logs), but real analysis is still done mostly by humans, making it an expensive process.
this is why data mining and warehousing work for corporations, because they can profit from insights gained from analysis. just what kind of return is tiburon expecting to receive from collecting this data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reminds me of "snow crash"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reminds me of "snow crash"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reminds me of "snow crash"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reminds me of "snow crash"
and how much does that cost? and what is the return on that investment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leaving privacy out of the arguement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I look forward to a day where people stop acting like idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Following an individual around taking pictures and posting them with the intent of "teaching her a lesson" = harrasment = illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have nothing to hide, you're probably wrong
This is what we used to say in the UK years ago, we now have more cameras per head than any other nation, add to that we are one of the most densly populated nations and you get the picture. Ask yourself at what point too many cameras becomes invasive (and trust me at a certain point it does), then ask yourselves if just before you reach that point you'll be able to stop the continued rollout once it has gathered momentum... (try not to think of the present NSA scope creep when you do this as it gets a bit Orwellian if you do)
Ask yourselves this now because trust me - tomorrow is too late
To the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear crowd". You are thinking in present terms where you can only be arrested for things which are frowned on at the moment of their inception, thats so 20th century darlings
In the UK we now have cameras with numberplate recognition which our "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" clones helped erect, they are fantastic, storing as they do travel details in such a small readily referenced form, absolutly perfect for retrospective persecution
Get a load of this guy - one day he excercises his democratic right to peacefull political protest, months later he's pulled over for no other reason than his attendance at the protest now shows him as a "person of interest"
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4393086.Brighton_pensioner_slams__police_state__after_te rror_police_tag_car/
If you give them more power they absolutly WILL use it, every time, no exceptions at all; about the only guarantee you have is that some of the ways this extra information will be used will be ways you never thought of or considered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you have nothing to hide, you're probably wrong
That's about the size of it, isn't it. Tiburon does not need general surveilance to fight crime. Why set the precedent?
Ex-hippies really, really suck IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scenario
Cop 2: "Well, let's just look and see if she's in Tiburon"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is obvious!
They want your picture, they can PAY you for the licensing rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alarmists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I live in a gated community where the do the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Brother...
On the other hand, on slow news days some of the posts are just silly, and IMHO this is one of them.
Photographing cars as they enter and exit a city is in no way similar to harassing an individual with a camera. The analogy weakens the main point.
Going to fill up your car with gas today? Uh oh... cameras! Going to get cash out of an ATM? Go shopping? Smile, you're on candid camera!
The latest tollways don't even use cash or toll tags any more. They take a picture of your license plate and mail you the bill at the end of each month. You get a better deal if you sign up for a monthly plan. The operators of these tollways know where and when you've been going - hope your wives and bosses don't find out!
Have you noticed that even the iPhone has a bunch of applications that are simply feeds of live streaming cameras in public places? In the not too distant future, I imagine it will be possible to correlate faces in these feeds to facebook pictures, flickr, etc.. The technology and applications exists... all it takes is storage and processing power.
Cameras photographing cars as they enter and exit Hyundai California is not going to end society as we know it. It isn't even a big deal in the context of how cameras are being used to violate our rights to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open version
In an attempt to just keep info on the Tiburon residents, I'll only keep info on cars that leave/return during the same day (or something similar).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already done
This already happened in the NY area last year. A man was cheating on his wife, lying about where he was. He used EZ Pass (a local toll pass) out here and his wife got a PI to get the info on which tollbooths his EZ Pass passed through on such-and-such a date. Proved he wasnt where he said he was, proved he was in the area of the mistress. Divorce! Did he deserve it, morally? Probably. But was it ethical for a TOLL COLLECTOR to track his movements and provide that to a 3rd party? I would argue no, or at least, it gives pause about these "store all data and trust it not to be misused" ideas.
If you dont think this sort of info will be misused, or used against you in other ways, you are deluding yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically, this is incorrect. Cameras aren't actually following your car around taking pictures. The cameras are at fixed points on corners or the sides of the roads, so it would be more correct to say that you could "stand on the side of the road and take pictures of her as she drives by (perhaps with several other people, and then they collaborate on her movements later)".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hyped up a bit too much
The problem isn't the cameras. The town of Tiburon is trying to cut down on crime or at least trying to keep crime from happening. I would like to know how many of the complainers and whiners actually sent them alternate ideas that could work just as well, if not better, to stave off crime. All we hear of are people b*tching about what some city does, which they have a right to do. But what did they do to help the problem? Or are they just standing on the sidelines wanting their voices of opposition to be heard without finding a better workaround?
Instead of whining, find a better alternative and submit it to them. It would a) need to cost less, b) be more effective, c) be less intrusive, d) require full transparency, e) be easier to implement, and more importantly f) decrease crime or prevent it from increasing.
There you go. Now think of something that will do all that, write it up, and submit it to the city of Tiburon and let them work it out. Posting a comment in a blog on the internet will not be heard as much as a professional looking alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the difference?
Don't like the idea? Don't go to Tiburon.
To me, it is more about transparency and warning everyone. Could someone misappropriate the information? Yes. So could that gas station attendant or waitress at a restaurant.
I'm much more interested in you showing me the abuse of privacy, not the potential for abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD, contradictions aren't good.
Now, it's 180 degree turn around? Explain this to us, please.
I'm curious to know how a license plate number storing is considered a privacy violation when anyone with pen and paper can stand on the street and do the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
Now, it's 180 degree turn around? Explain this to us, please."
Well, can't speak for Mike, who does not CwDH, but to me heir different for one very important reason.
Google has their PEOPLE pointing cameras at PUBLIC PLACES. This township has cameras in their PUBLIC PLACES pointed at PEOPLE. In the Google situation, that random unidentifiable people get in the way is incidental, particularly since in many(all?) cases Google will blur faces our upon request. In the township case, they are specifically aiming at recording information to identify people. To me, that's hugely different.
"I'm curious to know how a license plate number storing is considered a privacy violation when anyone with pen and paper can stand on the street and do the same thing."
Bullshit. You'd have a hard time doing this on some suburban road in front of a Slow Zone sign, never mind on US101. You can't write fast enough to accomplish what the cameras are accomplishing, assuming there is more than 1 car going in either direction per, say 20 seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
Unless this system is tied to a national database to derive this information, it's impossible to know who is driving a car by a simple photograph of a license plate.
It's what happens after the photo is taken which can be a debated topic, but definitely not this one. I've seen no indication the photos will be used to track down drivers.
Bullshit. You'd have a hard time doing this on some suburban road in front of a Slow Zone sign, never mind on US101.
Fine. A person with a damn camera. Better?
The fact still remains: ANYONE can do the same thing.
With the many cars I see on my travels to/from work, I've yet to identify a single driver based on the license plate.
I may know what county they originate, but nothing more.
I just don't see a privacy issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
But again, if they're not going to tie this in with such a database, what would be the point of photographing incoming/outgoing CARS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
My guess: once a crime is committed, then such photos can be turned over during an investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
....ok, but wouldn't they have to turn over ALL the videos to be picked through?
For instance, APB/BOLO goes out on license plate IL55443, in the area sometime between 3p and 7p on some given date. So aren't ALL the cars photographed between those times run through the databases? Or just the ones that correlate on known colour? How do you differentiate on make/model?
I don't think there's anyway around it, at some point someone who has nothing to do with what they're looking for is going to be ran against the database. Allowing that is opening a door I don't want opened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
Now, it's 180 degree turn around? Explain this to us, please.
Easy. Google does not have access to private DMV database to associate license plates to your personal info.
Google isn't using Street View to identify who you are or where you're driving (personal privacy). It's using it to identify places.
Incredibly different situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
How do you know? For that matter, how do you know the info will be used by this town in this fashion?
The article mentions nothing of tying the photos to a database.
Google isn't using Street View to identify who you are or where you're driving (personal privacy). It's using it to identify places.
Okay, I'll accept this one. But how is "where you're driving" personal privacy? Couldn't the person driving behind you do the exact same thing the article is against?
Remember, I'm not believing they're tying photos to a database. When info about this surfaces, then I can see the beef.
Until then, smile when you enter Tiburon.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TD, contradictions aren't good.
Yes and scope creep never happens, since the software to read numberplates and save this to central databases is incredibly easy to set up I take it we'll have your support when this happens?
Ooops thats right (slaps head) it'll be too late and pointless by then
Nevermind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
warning someone not commit a crime is a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOI request
If the town is allowed to keep the record because it is not a privacy violation then the same argument that releasing the data is a privacy violation would be moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Corollary
The corollary:
"If you don't have probable cause to believe I've done something wrong, you don't need to watch me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paranoid Nut Cases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember this day when the govn't changes a law and uses this data to retroactively find offenders and punish them, or put them on a "watch list".
Remember this day when insurance companies, or your employer get access to this data (either through FOIA or lawsuit) and use it to profile your behavior (already being done too much in other ways).
You had ample opportunity to stop this, yet you didn't have anything to hide. Unfortunately you didn't have anything to hide at that one particular moment in time.
I really wish that we hadn't numbed the geny and younger crowd to this type of thing as they were growing up. Now we are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tricks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay away from Tiburon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all starts somewhere.....
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
They started taking pictures of cars, and I didn't speak up because I didn't have anything to hide;
and then they started taking pictures of groups of people, and I didn't speak up because I didn't have anything to hide;
and then they started taking pictures of individuals crossing state borders, and I didn't speak up because I didn't have anything to hide;
and when they changed the laws to make it illegal to "FOO", they came for me because they had a picture of me in a group of people "FOOING";
DAMN I WISH I WOULD HAVE HAD THE COMMON SENSE TO SPEAK UP SOONER....
("FOO" can be anything that isn't currently illegal, but suddenly becomes illegal when the laws change, could be as small as spitting on the sidewalk, or protesting the current political leaders, it doesn't really matter what FOO is.... but if the FOO SH*TS, WEAR IT).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It all starts somewhere.....
You must be FOOling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It all starts somewhere.....
Ah hindsight - it would be a wonderful thing, but then you'd still need to have your eyes open at some point, too much effort I guess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now THAT'S Insane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically, no one said the cameras were following cars either. Her reasoning also had nothing to do with that, so you're actually the technically incorrect one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an invasion of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wedgies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameras in Tiburon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]