NEWS: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Broadcom Adds Bluetooth 3.0, Wi-Fi Direct to Android
Next: NEWS: Sprint 4Q Loss Narrows,Pre-Paid Growth Falls Short
From: atec 77 "atec on 11 Feb 2010 08:38 David Kaye wrote: > jeffl(a)cruzio.com wrote: > >> Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera system >> has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate revenue for >> its municipal customers. > > I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that traffic > light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? It all comes down to correct calibration and doing it often if you were subjected to the environ these cams are you would drift as well although I suspect more than 2% would be optimistic worst case I've read about this matter > extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is way down in the > noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of what you cite. That's what the authorities want you to believe and you know why there are many external factors which do make them less accurate The > sensors don't come on until the light turns red and the the camera doesn't > snap the photo unless the car rolls over the intersection line while the light > is red. Fairly simple, actually. > > Now, as to safeguards for innocent web browsing, I think the people who run > the FBI are very aware that any given website is going to have lots of sources > of content and that people will accidentally visit sites they don't wish to > visit. > > I don't share a mistrust of government as much as I have a mistrust of private > industry. ALways misstrust goverment , after all it's the one who taxes is unfair and sends you to die in times of war , you get little say in the matter We can control the government because we vote and influence others > who vote and give money to campaigns. On the other hand, we have no voice > against companies such as Google. We can't vote unless we own their stock, > and few of us are rich enough to own enough Google stock to make our voices > heard. > > So, trusing the FBI versus trusting Google to do the right thing, I think I > trust the FBI more. foolish idea imho >
From: Bob on 11 Feb 2010 08:51 On 11/02/2010 11:21, David Kaye wrote: > jeffl(a)cruzio.com wrote: > >> Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera system >> has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate revenue for >> its municipal customers. > > I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that traffic > light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? I've read about this matter > extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is way down in the > noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of what you cite. The > sensors don't come on until the light turns red and the the camera doesn't > snap the photo unless the car rolls over the intersection line while the light > is red. Fairly simple, actually. > > Now, as to safeguards for innocent web browsing, I think the people who run > the FBI are very aware that any given website is going to have lots of sources > of content and that people will accidentally visit sites they don't wish to > visit. > > I don't share a mistrust of government as much as I have a mistrust of private > industry. We can control the government because we vote and influence others > who vote and give money to campaigns. On the other hand, we have no voice > against companies such as Google. We can't vote unless we own their stock, > and few of us are rich enough to own enough Google stock to make our voices > heard. > > So, trusing the FBI versus trusting Google to do the right thing, I think I > trust the FBI more. > "FBI agents for years sought sensitive records from telephone companies through e-mails, sticky notes, sneak peeks and other "startling" methods that violated electronic privacy law and federal policy, according to a Justice Department inspector general report released Wednesday." <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012002070.html> NarusInsight is in wide use, not only in the US but worldwide. "One third of the world's largest carriers use Narus solutions to protect and manage their IP networks. Narus has built a truly global footprint with carrier and government customers across the Americas, EMEA and AsiaPAC." <http://www.narus.com/index.php/solutions/intercept> From 2006:- <http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476>
From: atec 77 "atec on 11 Feb 2010 11:35 DanS wrote: > sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in > news:hl0p7p$but$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> jeffl(a)cruzio.com wrote: >> >>> Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera system >>> has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate revenue for >>> its municipal customers. >> I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that >> traffic light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? I've read about this >> matter extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is >> way down in the noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of >> what you cite. The sensors don't come on until the light turns red >> and the the camera doesn't snap the photo unless the car rolls over >> the intersection line while the light is red. Fairly simple, >> actually. > > > Here in Western New York, Buffalo specifically, there was some push to > install redlight cameras that has been thwarted for the time being. There > were heated discussions about it, the effectiveness, and the legality of > it. > > It is widely believed here that installation of said cameras are nothing > more than a way for the city to get more money. They claim it is for > safety purposes, but read this..... > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ > > The municipalites have no monetary outlay. The company that mfgs the > equipment designs the system, installs it, and does the monitoring, for > no cost. In return, they get to keep 2/3's of the fines paid by a camera > issued ticket. > > http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ > > It is a purely financial concern we have them here in Au and never has there been proof of anything but revenue they do burn well though with some fuel added might be a way to recycle old tyres mebe :)
From: DanS on 11 Feb 2010 13:24 >> >> Here in Western New York, Buffalo specifically, there was some push >> to install redlight cameras that has been thwarted for the time >> being. There were heated discussions about it, the effectiveness, and >> the legality of it. >> >> It is widely believed here that installation of said cameras are >> nothing more than a way for the city to get more money. They claim it >> is for safety purposes, but read this..... >> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ >> >> The municipalites have no monetary outlay. The company that mfgs the >> equipment designs the system, installs it, and does the monitoring, >> for no cost. In return, they get to keep 2/3's of the fines paid by a >> camera issued ticket. >> >> http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ >> >> > It is a purely financial concern > we have them here in Au And I think one of the biggest red light camera mfgs is out of Australia...or is that New Zealand ? > and never has there been proof of anything > but > revenue > they do burn well though with some fuel added > might be a way to recycle old tyres mebe :) What I did find interesting in the article is that it plainly states that it *IS* all about the money. If it *IS* truly about safety, why would the municipalities get rid of them once it's shown that they are actually bringing in *less* money after a while ? (Since people do adjust their driving habits as to not get tickets.)
From: John Navas on 11 Feb 2010 13:43
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:34:36 -0600, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in <Xns9D1C5747F92Dthisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131>: >sfdavidkaye2(a)yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in >news:hl0p7p$but$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> jeffl(a)cruzio.com wrote: >> >>>Don't think it will happen? Well, the automated traffic camera system >>>has about a 5-10% error rate, but continues to generate revenue for >>>its municipal customers. >> >> I'm all for consspiracy theories, but what evidence do you cite that >> traffic light cameras have a 5-10% error rate? I've read about this >> matter extensively and from everything I've read, the error rate is >> way down in the noise, something like 0.03%, or less than 1/100th of >> what you cite. The sensors don't come on until the light turns red >> and the the camera doesn't snap the photo unless the car rolls over >> the intersection line while the light is red. Fairly simple, >> actually. In theory, but in practice at least some of these cameras are going off at the wrong times, deliberately or accidentally. After noticing a particular camera in San Francisco go off more than once at odd times, I spent some time monitoring it, and it's definitely sometimes firing when the light is _not_ red, what percentage of the time I cannot say for sure. >Here in Western New York, Buffalo specifically, there was some push to >install redlight cameras that has been thwarted for the time being. There >were heated discussions about it, the effectiveness, and the legality of >it. > >It is widely believed here that installation of said cameras are nothing >more than a way for the city to get more money. They claim it is for >safety purposes, but read this..... >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ > >The municipalites have no monetary outlay. The company that mfgs the >equipment designs the system, installs it, and does the monitoring, for >no cost. In return, they get to keep 2/3's of the fines paid by a camera >issued ticket. >http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ Which gives the company a powerful incentive to "accidentally" take pictures when the light is not red. Privatizing law enforcement is just plain wrong, not that public agencies are necessarily clean either -- California used to be infamous for "speed traps" (and still is in some areas), but the speed trap law doesn't apply to red light cameras. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> |