Failure to Stop: Red Toyota Corolla S

I disagree with this way of thinking and logic. There IS privacy "out in the public." We do not give up our right to privacy just because we are in public. For example, you can not find out my private information (without proper cause) just by reading my license plate. Do I have the right to post your credit card number here on the internet, just because you gave it to me this morning at the store? Maybe I should, since you believe that our internet forum should be used to hand out our private information. I am shocked that people like you believe that the internet is a haven that will protect you from privacy laws. Congress and state legislatures are working every day to enact laws to protect individuals from people like you.

You are also wrong on the second count. I am sure you have heard of slander and libel. Libel is written, slander is spoken. A person could have a strong case against you, should you post false information that harms their character or reputation.

Finally, you can not expect someone to come here are "refute" claims against them. Unfortunately that may be the status quo. People have lost their jobs for posting false information on the internet on these so-called web-blogs. Congress is cracking down on them as well. Why would you risk your job, personal reputation, and money on allegations that are unfounded? Unless it is admitted or substantiated you are best to keep it to yourself.

 

My point was less broad than Homer's. My contention is simple. No one has a right of privacy driving on public roads. Period.

Your ability to drive on public roads is a privilege granted by the State, NOT A RIGHT in any way, shape or form. This privilege is predicated on safe, lawful operation of vehicles.

All drivers on public roads must have a state-issue license and a state-issue vehicle ID. Public roads are just that, publicly owned.

How anyone could expect a "right" of privacy during driving is utterly beyond me. The only justification I can see is wanting to hide behind your steering wheel and not be responsible for your actions.

 

You are correct that the roads are public, the state issues the license, bla bla bla. However there is a larger issue here. The issue is not "who owns the roads" or "who is licensed to operate a motor vehicle on the roads." The issue is whether private information can be disseminated on the internet without the consent of the driver of the car. It would take me about 10 seconds to look up your private information based on your state issued license. However, it is a felony to distribute that information to anyone including posting it on the internet. What you fail to understand is that the location of the automobile and the state issuance of a license does NOT give anyone the right to post your personal information on the internet.

 

It might be beyond you, but it is the law. If I remember my study of privacy law correctly, you don't give up all of your privacy rights just because you are in a public place. True, when you are driving on a public road you give up some of your privacy, in that the police can legally stop you and ask to see your identification. With a very low threshold of cause (a "reasonable suspicion," a much lower threshold than the "probable cause" standard), they can even ask you to get out of the car and frisk you for weapons (it is called a "Terry Stop"). They are still limited in what they can search in your car, though.

So you don't give up all of your privacy rights, even to the police. This is especially true if you are talking about your rights as to another private citizen.

Heck, I believe that even local governments have gotten in trouble for sending pictures taken from a red light camera to the driver's house. In the case I remember, the wife got the picture, which showed the husband with another woman in the passenger seat. The husband sued the city for violating his privacy rights, and I can't remember for sure, but I think he won.

 

To make the point simple. There are microwaves traveling throughout the air that you breathe. They travel through your house, car, and even through EVERY public domain. You are strictly forbidden from eavesdropping on those signals and posting them on the internet EVEN THOUGH they are in a "public" place.

Certain information of others is private. I agree that the make and model or even the plate of a car may not be private. But perhaps the name of the driver, social security number, drivers license number, criminal record, age, weight, height, eye color, address could be considered private. The private personal information together with allegations of wrongdoing could present a problem.

 

Just exactly what "personal information" is being posted here?? The cars make and color? How is that "personal information". Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone's plates being posted here.

And if it was was, just for the sake of disussion, just how is posting this a felony?

 

Yes, VA did away with the cameras becuase they violated privacy rights.... my point exactly

 

I would disagree with your assesment. IMO this happened due to influence of rural state representatives. Reps from urban areas were very much in favor of retaining the cameras. The privacy issue itself is still TBD by the courts.

 

Many people have access to a driver’s personal information. The state keeps a database (there are also national databases). When you run a report on an individual you must have a reason for this query. The reason for running the report is either state or federally regulated. Reposting the information or using it for "other" reasons is a felony.

 

I don't believe this is true at all, at least for the example you gave. You can eavesdrop all you want. You just can't decrypt, that is the part that is illegal. It is up to the owner of the signal to encrypt it for security, otherwise their signal is "in the clear" on public airwaves.

 

Unless you have a properly calibrated radar gun and proof you know how to operate one, you best leave speed enforcement to the licensed professionals or you could very well open yourself up to libel suit.

 

Just how is posting witness of any kind of irresponsible and dangerous driving libelous? Especially since all that is posted is time, place, make and color?

 

Not true, the FCC (DOJ, etc.) do not require encryption to prevent eavesdropping and recording (federal wiretapping statute). It can be as simple as listening in on an unencrypted phone conversation. Heck, my baby monitor picks up 900Mhz phone conversations all the time. Yes, it is illegal to eavesdrop and record. We are way off topic now....

 

You can take a picture in public of anything you want. How do you think Paparazzi's get away with it?

The state taking a picture is totally different then an individual. The right to privacy does not preclude breaking the law. If you see someone run a stop sign and take a photo of it then it becomes evidence.

I'd like to see someone try to sue for damages on posting a license plate. And posting that information is not a felony since its taken from the plate that is in public view.

In fact, if I recall correctly, that John website was posted by the communtiy and not the cops. Surely if the right to privacy was that strong then they would not be able to do that.

 

Paparazzi gets away with it because the target public figures.

 

Most states that have done away with red light cameras did so because they actually caused more accidents. People driving through intersections known to have the red light cameras slammed on their brakes the instant the light turned yellow and they were getting rear-ended.

 

So there are differing standards of what privacy is depending on circumstance. I'm sure the privacy standard is lightened for public safety as well. It's not like we're intending to harrass someone b/c we don't like them. It's merely a public notice that this vehicle is unsafe.