Gov't cameras in your car? E-toll patent hints at Big Brotherish future

[woo me with science]

Yeah, it's just a patent...but :scared:


http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/13/8308841-govt-cameras-in-your-car-e-toll-patent-hints-at-big-brotherish-future

Gov't cameras in your car? E-toll patent hints at Big Brotherish future
By Bob Sullivan

....
Kapsch TrafficCom AG, an Austrian company that just signed a 10-year contract to provide in-car transponders such as the E-Z Pass to 22 electronic highway toll collection systems around the U.S., recently filed a patent on technology to add multi-function mini-cameras to their toll gadgets. Today, transponders are in about 22 million cars around the U.S. Adding inward and outward facing cameras to the gadgets would create surveillance capabilities far beyond anything government agencies have tried until now.

The stated reason for an inward-pointing camera is to verify the number of occupants in the car for enforcement of HOV and HOT lanes. The outward-pointing camera could be used for the same purpose, helping authorities enforce minimum occupant rules against drivers who aren't carrying transponders.

But it's easy to imagine other uses. The patent says the transponders would have the ability to store and transmit pictures, either at random intervals or on command from a central office. It would be tempting to use them as part of a search for a lost child, for example, and law enforcement officials might find the data treasure trove irresistible. The gadget could also be instructed to take pictures when the acceleration of a car "exceeds a threshold," or when accidents occur, so it could be used like an airplane cockpit flight recorder.

It's important to note that a patent filing is a far cry from the invention and manufacturing of a new product....(but) "I think (drivers) should be pretty concerned," he said. "You want to make sure any use of that technology is very carefully regulated. People should let the E-Z Pass folks know now what they think about any possible plans to introduce cameras in their cars, now, while it's being developed, rather than before it's already a fait accompli, and some agency says it's already spent millions on it and can't turn back now."

[hobbit709]

1. duct tape works wonders.

[Atman]

2. I guarantee there would be a provision disallowing obscuring of the camera.

Here is why I don't use one...well, the first reason is simple; no tolls for people using the western part of the Massachusetts Turnpike. Under Rep. Governor Bill Weld, he eliminated toll for anyone using the Pike between NY and Ludlow, MA (which encompasses the intersection of Interstate 91 - driving anywhere between those exits is toll-free, as a way of compensating the Western part of the state for the BILLIONS spent on The Big Dig in Boston, which most of us don't use).

Second, Massachusetts tried an experiment some years ago where the started mailing speeding tickets to people who arrived at their destinations too soon. IOW, if you're driving 65 mph (the speed limit) and the transponder tags you as reaching your exit too soon, clearly you were speeding, and they'd mail you a ticket. The courts eventually found this illegal (or at least impermissible), but it doesn't mean they won't try it again. I just don't find the convenience worth the price of being monitored all the time. My iPhone already does that for me. ;)

[zonkers]

7. FYI, I know some Austrailian cities already tickets you via mail if you reach your exit too soon.

It actually saves lives but I am not a proponent.

[woo me with science]

5. I'd rather not have to buy duct tape.

I'd rather they keep the damned camera out of my car in the first place.

[hobbit709]

6. I keep duct tape on hand.

But I probably wouldn't have the money to buy a new car anyhow.

[chrisa]

3. "Touch those toes!"

The fact that someone actually thought this would be a good idea is horrifying.

[Scuba]

4. Next they'll be installing cameras in people's foreheads. n/t