17 minutes ago, gildone said:

On the tracking subject brought up by others, I find the paranoia about traffic cameras to be rather ridiculous, when far more tracking of people and their behavior is done via their smart phones and no one bitches about it.  Plus, the privacy arguments put forth here conflate the issue.  All traffic cameras do is the same thing a police officer does at less cost to the municipality.  It's not really comparable to government access to dash cams, ability to disable vehicles, etc. 

 

First, conflate what issue with what other issue?

 

Second, if you say red light cameras are "not really comparable" to those other possibilities, does that mean that you don't actually support any of those other possible measures in the name of safety, or that you would do so for different reasons?

 

I don't see this as conflating any issue with any other issue.  I see it as a single issue on a spectrum--safety benefits vs. costs of proposals to increase that safety, including nonfinancial costs such as liberty, privacy, and quality of life.

6 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Unless you're dealing with a police offer with an eidetic memory for license plates, the claim that cameras are just doing the same thing as a camera with even rudimentary computer vision doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Effectiveness matters, a police officer can't post hoc tell you every intersection a person has passed through in the past week. A task which would be trivial for a network of surveillance cameras. 

 

Once again, there is no evidence that speed / red light cameras are doing double duty as surveillance cameras, but that doesn't mean it is unreasonable to be concerned about how the technology could be misused and be proactive in guarding against it. 

 

--

 

Also, another thing I wonder about if cameras become more frequent is if the prevalence of removing license plates will increase? Removing license plates (or rendering them illegible) seems to have become more frequent recently. Outside of police chasing the unplated vehicle down, I'm not sure what else can be done to enforce the law with an unplated car.

Surveillance cameras and license scanners already exist and they collect massive amounts of date. Traffic cameras are a separate issue. The outlawing of redlight/ speeding cameras has not stopped the proliferation of the surveillance state. 

 

 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by freefourur

3 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

There is no way red light or speeding cameras are calibrated 10-20% off.

 

 

Now we're into my area of expertise.   

 

Bleep yes, speed cameras can be that far off, if they are computer controlled.  I have a measurement microscope I use at work, if I want to have it call 2mm 2", I know how to do that, easily.

 

A more common trick is pick and choose vis a vis enforcement.   Maple Heights had speed cameras until the voters voted them out.   The city bragged about how almost everyone that got caught was from outside the city.   Well.....set the enforcement criteria at 45mph for cars registered in 44137 and 35mph for others and you will have that....

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Surveillance camera and license scanner already exist and they collect massive amounts of date. Traffic cameras are a separate issue. The outlawing of redlight/ speeding cameras has not stopped the proliferation of the surveillance state. 

That's a fair point, the fact that a problem exists doesn't mean that concerns about the enlargement of said problem are unreasonable. To the extent that surveillance cameras and license plate scanners already exist, I don't want to add to their number without legal assurance from a carefully crafted law that the additional cameras couldn't be used in a way that infringes on privacy concerns. 

8 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Surveillance cameras and license scanners already exist and they collect massive amounts of date. 

 

Lol I had a mental breakdown against Lakewood Police after being pulled over five times in a week for "Ohio plates" coming back as "unregistered." The scanners couldn't figure out the license plats say "California" on them. That was a few years back. Maybe they're better now? 

4 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Now we're into my area of expertise.   

 

Bleep yes, speed cameras can be that far off, if they are computer controlled.  I have a measurement microscope I use at work, if I want to have it call 2mm 2", I know how to do that, easily.

 

A more common trick is pick and choose vis a vis enforcement.   Maple Heights had speed cameras until the voters voted them out.   The city bragged about how almost everyone that got caught was from outside the city.   Well.....set the enforcement criteria at 45mph for cars registered in 44137 and 35mph for others and you will have that....

 

 

 

 

Cops lie, cops lie, cops lie.

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

That's a fair point, the fact that a problem exists doesn't mean that concerns about the enlargement of said problem are unreasonable. To the extent that surveillance cameras and license plate scanners already exist, I don't want to add to their number without legal assurance from a carefully crafted law that the additional cameras couldn't be used in a way that infringes on privacy concerns. 

But this is separate from the traffic camera issue.  Governments continue to add to surveillance camera and plate scanners. They do not require any legislation to continue and crafting law specifically for traffic cameras will do nothing to slow the spread of surveillance. The Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public.  Therefore, you can expect surveillance to continue unabated reagardless of redlight cameras. 

1 minute ago, E Rocc said:

A more common trick is pick and choose vis a vis enforcement.   Maple Heights had speed cameras until the voters voted them out.   The city bragged about how almost everyone that got caught was from outside the city.   Well.....set the enforcement criteria at 45mph for cars registered in 44137 and 35mph for others and you will have that....

 

Ugh.  The local favoritism angle is another obvious risk that I should have mentioned upthread--though one could see perhaps state-level legislation forcing change on that front.  Though I use "see" in the loose sense of "theoretically imagine," not "rationally predict that a measure doing that and nothing further would get through all levels of the state-level political process."

3 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Ugh.  The local favoritism angle is another obvious risk that I should have mentioned upthread--though one could see perhaps state-level legislation forcing change on that front.  Though I use "see" in the loose sense of "theoretically imagine," not "rationally predict that a measure doing that and nothing further would get through all levels of the state-level political process."

Favoritism in traffic citations can exist without cameras too. Police can just not cite people who live in the community unless they are going over a certain speed. So I don't think this is an argument for or against using cameras. 

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

But this is separate from the traffic camera issue.  Governments continue to add to surveillance camera and plate scanners. They do not require any legislation to continue and crafting law specifically for traffic cameras will do nothing to slow the spread of surveillance. The Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public.  Therefore, you can expect surveillance to continue unabated reagardless of redlight cameras. 

It's only separate from the traffic camera issue if the traffic cameras won't be used for surveillance. If they will, it's the same issue. 

 

Again, it's an effectiveness issue, a network of 10 surveillance cameras is less effective at eroding privacy than a network of 100 such cameras. 

 

I don't want to push too far off topic into government surveillance, but just because the supreme court rules a hypothetical law constitutional doesn't mean Congress has to pass such laws. 

 

My main point here is that if you want to reduce the public's distaste for traffic cameras make it explicit in law that they can't be used for surveillance. It isn't a silver bullet, as that isn't the only reason people don't like them, but it would cost nothing (it might actually save money, as the more complicated tech might just be illegal), so why not just make that an explicit requirement? 

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

It's only separate from the traffic camera issue if the traffic cameras won't be used for surveillance. If they will, it's the same issue. 

 

Again, it's an effectiveness issue, a network of 10 surveillance cameras is less effective at eroding privacy than a network of 100 such cameras. 

 

I don't want to push too far off topic into government surveillance, but just because the supreme court rules a hypothetical law constitutional doesn't mean Congress has to pass such laws. 

 

My main point here is that if you want to reduce the public's distaste for traffic cameras make it explicit in law that they can't be used for surveillance. It isn't a silver bullet, as that isn't the only reason people don't like them, but it would cost nothing (it might actually save money, as the more complicated tech might just be illegal), so why not just make that an explicit requirement? 

Surveillance camera and license plate scanners are way more prolific that traffic camera. I'm not sure sure why you've compared 10 surveillance camera to 100 traffic cameras. But if people care about this issue, then we should focus on surveillance which would cover all types of privacy invasive technology. 

  

50 minutes ago, freefourur said:

The flip side of this, is that traffic cameras don't perform pretextual stops. Camera tickets don't escalate traffic offenses to 4th amendment violating vehicle searches by using canines to manufacture probable cause.  Cameras, provided that they are situated properly, have no bias. They don't use their "judgment" to let some people go. Finally, camera enforcement will not result in escalation of violence by and to police officers. 

 

10 minutes ago, freefourur said:

But this is separate from the traffic camera issue.  Governments continue to add to surveillance camera and plate scanners. They do not require any legislation to continue and crafting law specifically for traffic cameras will do nothing to slow the spread of surveillance. The Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public.  Therefore, you can expect surveillance to continue unabated reagardless of redlight cameras. 

 

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Favoritism in traffic citations can exist without cameras too. Police can just not cite people who live in the community unless they are going over a certain speed. So I don't think this is an argument for or against using cameras. 

 

So, some good points here, but also some potentially contradictory ones: In your earlier post, you say that cameras don't use their judgment to let some people go; later, you admit the possible or actual existence of local favoritism even in automated enforcement.  The issue I have is that I really don't like the argument that "well, this won't make anything worse, it'll just continue to do something unacceptable, just in a different way."

 

Your points about avoiding pretextual stops and playing chicken with the Fourth Amendment line on searches and seizures is a legitimate one, I'll grant that.  (Though of course, one advantage of having a human officer on the scene is that if someone blows a red light right after the bars close, a breathalyzer might be entirely warranted.  But not all post-violation stops are so easy.  So I'll give you those two points.)

 

On the larger issue (and I'll try not to go too OT), I wonder if we're entering a decade in which privacy considerations are taken more seriously.  While I know that our phones give away a fair amount of information about us, I know more people avoiding social media entirely, for example.  And even with respect to phones: Apple got into a big fight a few years ago involving the All Writs Act with respect to a law enforcement request to help decrypt/backdoor-access an iPhone.  It was a major, expensive fight and not something they'd have done without a perceived business case for it, i.e., a sense that their customers want that defense raised, because the phone in question belonged to a terrorist, so definitely not where a mainstream Fortune 500 company would ordinarily choose to make a principled stand.

1 minute ago, Gramarye said:

  

 

 

 

So, some good points here, but also some potentially contradictory ones: In your earlier post, you say that cameras don't use their judgment to let some people go; later, you admit the possible or actual existence of local favoritism even in automated enforcement.  The issue I have is that I really don't like the argument that "well, this won't make anything worse, it'll just continue to do something unacceptable, just in a different way."

 

 

 

I do mention in my post that if the cameras are properly situated they could eliminate bias. Yes, i hadn't considered calibration for different speeds. That could be addressed in legislation. 

 

I think the focus on traffic cameras specifically loses sight of things like license plate scanners (I know I'm broken record) but these scanners scan every single plate and store the information (they say for one year) but I assume it could be done indefinitely. The conversation of privacy really needs to be broad. Also, LEO's can access Ring cameras without warrants by going directly to Amazon. I fear that maybe we've lost the fight for privacy already. 

10 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Surveillance camera and license plate scanners are way more prolific that traffic camera. I'm not sure sure why you've compared 10 surveillance camera to 100 traffic cameras. But if people care about this issue, then we should focus on surveillance which would cover all types of privacy invasive technology. 

I'm thinking about a hypothetical future where there's a traffic camera at every intersection. I'm not talking about the present situation, and all numbers are purely hypothetical.

 

I actually don't know the current prevalence of surveillance cameras / license plate scanners. If you have a good source on that I'd be interested to see it. 

 

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

The conversation of privacy really needs to be broad. Also, LEO's can access Ring cameras without warrants by going directly to Amazon. I fear that maybe we've lost the fight for privacy already. 

I agree, and I understand your pessimism. I also hope you turn out to be wrong. 

3 minutes ago, Ethan said:

 

 

I actually don't know the current prevalence of surveillance cameras / license plate scanners. If you have a good source on that I'd be interested to see it. 

 

 

When i have some time I will see if I can locate some data on scanners. I know they are fairly prevalent. Anecdotally, in Lakewood, there are police surveillance cameras every 2 - 3 blocks along Madison and Detroit Avenues. All public parks and playgrounds in the city are also covered with cameras. 

Edited April 17, 20232 yr by freefourur

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

I'm thinking about a hypothetical future where there's a traffic camera at every intersection.

 

What if everyone goes around with a bicycle rack permanently to a trunk hitch rack to foil the cameras?  Like my neighbor, who has a debilitating knee injury and can't ride a bicycle, yet has driven for nearly two years straight with a bicycle rack obscuring his plate?

 

Do the police then start targeting people with bicycle racks?  

36 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Cops lie, cops lie, cops lie.

 

People lie.  

 

I recently watched a circa-1991 episode of COPS where someone called the cops because his neighbor stole his cat.  The officer asked for a picture of the stolen cat to compare it to the live cat.  The police officer pointed out that the cat in the picture was a female but the live cat was a male.  The caller then went berserk and continue to insist that his lost cat (or possibly non-existent cat) was the live cat, and that his neighbor had taken it.  

 

36 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Now we're into my area of expertise.   

 

Bleep yes, speed cameras can be that far off, if they are computer controlled.  I have a measurement microscope I use at work, if I want to have it call 2mm 2", I know how to do that, easily.

 

A more common trick is pick and choose vis a vis enforcement.   Maple Heights had speed cameras until the voters voted them out.   The city bragged about how almost everyone that got caught was from outside the city.   Well.....set the enforcement criteria at 45mph for cars registered in 44137 and 35mph for others and you will have that....

 

Again, things you legislate at the state level. Require County Auditors to regularly check the accuracy of the cameras. Eliminate the benefit to municipalities messing with the numbers by removing the financial incentive to falsely calibrate the cameras. Make the municipality report quarterly the zip code for the recipient of each citation, and each potential citation they waive. If there is a discrepancy between locals and others, issue a warning to the municipality, and eventually remove their ability to run a speed camera or red light camera program.

 

Have an officer watch every infraction, and verify the information so it isn't fully automated. 

 

By everything I've read, speed cameras that are properly calibrated can reliably determine the speed of a vehicle within 1mph. By providing a buffer in time to clear an intersection, and a buffer in MPH, you eliminate the issue of small 1-2mph calibration issues. 

 

Make it a felony for anyone to knowingly tamper with the calibration to make the cameras inaccurate. Remove a municipality's ability to operate cameras if they knowingly deploy faulty cameras.

 

This isn't that hard. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

That's a fair point, the fact that a problem exists doesn't mean that concerns about the enlargement of said problem are unreasonable. To the extent that surveillance cameras and license plate scanners already exist, I don't want to add to their number without legal assurance from a carefully crafted law that the additional cameras couldn't be used in a way that infringes on privacy concerns. 

 

https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2022/08/23/automatic-license-plate-reading-cameras-in-mentor-

38 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Again, things you legislate at the state level. Require County Auditors to regularly check the accuracy of the cameras. Eliminate the benefit to municipalities messing with the numbers by removing the financial incentive to falsely calibrate the cameras. Make the municipality report quarterly the zip code for the recipient of each citation, and each potential citation they waive. If there is a discrepancy between locals and others, issue a warning to the municipality, and eventually remove their ability to run a speed camera or red light camera program.

Easier said than done. In many cases the legislation is already in place for much of what you propose. It just does not happen all the time. People are people, resources are limited and get prioritized, passing legislation and acting like it solves the problem is foolhardy. Enforcement requires people and it is not always as even as what you may envision in legislation. If you think it gets rid of bias, it just replaces it with bias on a different level. 

40 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Have an officer watch every infraction, and verify the information so it isn't fully automated.

That is the current legislation regarding speed cameras. In Ohio, if you want cameras, you have to have an officer watch it full time. This essentially makes the cameras unpalatable for most departments because it now will cost more and take up resources vs the current system.

 

41 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

By everything I've read, speed cameras that are properly calibrated can reliably determine the speed of a vehicle within 1mph. By providing a buffer in time to clear an intersection, and a buffer in MPH, you eliminate the issue of small 1-2mph calibration issues. 

I do not think the issue has ever been about whether the cameras are accurate. It has always been an argument about fairness. With speed cameras, the question is not whether they can be accurately calibrated but how to prove *if* they are calibrated correctly, and how to question the accuser at trial, which is difficult when you do not have an officer monitoring the cameras at all times. Back in 2016 when Elmwood Place got in trouble with the cameras, they were all calibrated by the company who installed them and the tickets were mailed out from the main office in Maryland. This created the due process issues that have been mentioned earlier. 

26 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

That is the current legislation regarding speed cameras. In Ohio, if you want cameras, you have to have an officer watch it full time. This essentially makes the cameras unpalatable for most departments because it now will cost more and take up resources vs the current system.

 

That's not what I'm suggesting.

 

I'm not suggesting the officer should need to monitor in real time and personally witness the infraction. That's a really stupid law that essentially outlaws them because some suburban lawmakers kept getting tickets and didn't want to keep getting tickets. I'm saying the officer should simply need to review the footage, determine if there is any reason not to issue a citation, and then issue a citation within a certain amount of time and send the citation in the mail. It could be a daily task for someone in the PD.

5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

That's not what I'm suggesting.

 

I'm not suggesting the officer should need to monitor in real time and personally witness the infraction. That's a really stupid law that essentially outlaws them because some suburban lawmakers kept getting tickets and didn't want to keep getting tickets. I'm saying the officer should simply need to review the footage, determine if there is any reason not to issue a citation, and then issue a citation within a certain amount of time and send the citation in the mail. It could be a daily task for someone in the PD.

The current Ohio Speed camera law came out of the Elmwood Place situation. I suggest you google the history and report to understand how the law came to be what it is. It was ultimately a compromise between the police/municipalities and the public to allow for limited use of cameras for public safety vs a full outright ban in Ohio.

 

Back when Elmwood installed these cameras ,their revenue for speeding tickets more than quadrupled. The department was now flush with cash from all the speeding fines, both legitimate and illegtimate. This was not necessarily malfeasance by the city for placing inaccurately calibrated cameras but it caused a host of other issues. One of them was providing notice to drivers of cameras, others involved calibration and the main one was the due process issue of being able to question the accuser since the camera was monitored by a 3rd party company who calibrated and sent the ticket in the mail. It relied on a host of factors to be correct that the current scheme (which had been blessed by a number of other states) could not necessarily comply with . It did not necessarily involve a politician getting a ticket but it was community outrage over the amount of tickets being issued to drivers who were driving reasonably whether or not they were slightly exceeding the speed limit.   I do not think you can place the issue on an upset politician but rather there was a lot of public outcry over the cameras and the inability to state a defense against them in court. 

I know about the Elmwood Place issue.

 

What the statehouse did was essentially a ban by making the utilization of cameras so expensive and limited that no one would install them. What I'm suggesting is actually creating accountability while not making it so restrictive that no one would use them 

 

You never argue in good faith, though. Occasionally I get sucked into these arguments. 

3 hours ago, gildone said:

@Brutus_buckeye You have failed to make a convincing argument that there is a due process problem and keep repeating the same things with no evidence.  You haven't provided any court cases.  Someone asked you to back up number and you said they  were "just for illustrative purposes".   All of your writing boils down to this: All you have is your opinion.  That's fine.  Opinions are fine so far as they go, and I have made no claims that anything I've said is anything but my opinion.  And in my opinion, we can put you in the camp of:  "I want to break the law and get away with it.  I'll just scream about due process, even though I can't back any of it up".   So let's just agree to disagree and be done. 

 

On the tracking subject brought up by others, I find the paranoia about traffic cameras to be rather ridiculous, when far more tracking of people and their behavior is done via their smart phones and no one bitches about it.  Plus, the privacy arguments put forth here conflate the issue.  All traffic cameras do is the same thing a police officer does at less cost to the municipality.  It's not really comparable to government access to dash cams, ability to disable vehicles, etc. 

 

As for this little gem: "I supported...the successful effort to have "traffic calming" (a.k.a. "driver enraging") measures uninstalled on Akron city streets. "  It's just another example of driver entitlement.  Translation:  "We can't make drivers mad, but it's ok to have unsafe, pedestrian-killing streets."   

 

The most thoughtful recent comments here are from @ryanlammi

 

 

I get it, you have an opinion that disagrees with mine, yet you also provide no facts or basis other than "it will be safer" and "we can save a life" with them. The problem with your argument is that as Gramaye points out, you do not want to address the issue of what type of liberty you are willing to give up to ensure the perceived safety you seek.  So the question is posed to you, at what level do you feel the violation of your liberty and due process is too intrusive vs the benefits received from increased monitoring?

 

Regarding cases, the Elmwood Place case in Ohio sums the argument up quite well. Now, to your point, you could design the system to avoid due process violations but in the vast majority of cases that does not happen. The vast majority of these systems use a private 3rd party to monitor and issue the tickets. They are incentivized to write more tickets becuase it means more revenue for the company (and more for the city). The company that handled most Ohio cities at that time required motorists who wanted to contest their tickets to pay a $25 admin fee to get the data and there was no guarantee they would have that refunded if they won. It put a ton of roadblocks up to discourage motorists to even try and defend themselves against such charges. 

https://www.mic.com/articles/29661/speed-cameras-ohio-judge-rules-them-an-unconstitutional-sham

Fortunately, Ohio politicians listened and placed significant restrictions on cities who wanted to use cameras going forward to protect motorists from due process violations. The ultimate result of this was that it made the use of such cameras no longer palatable by cities as the cost was not worth the benefit. 

7 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

You never argue in good faith, though. Occasionally I get sucked into these arguments. 

I always argue in good faith. 

 

The Elmwood place example is a typical case that was occurring with the cameras. They were ripe for abuse and were being abused. 

 

To your point, yes, the statehouse made them unpalatable for cities to use but if the true intent was safety, they could still use them.

 

Your point is that maybe the officer does not need to stand next to the camera and could sit in the office to monitor the camera (which would be more time efficient). While I do not agree in making it easier for cities in this case since their past history shows that they abused such technology in the past, I am not going to discount the validity of your point.  

 

Assume you relax certain areas of the law to allow cameras, what would you do to ensure the proper protections to motorists under what you would propose and also to ensure you do not have such a situation like what happened in Elmwood Place, which I think any reasonable person would consider it a gross abuse of state power.

17 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The Elmwood place example is a typical case that was occurring with the cameras. They were ripe for abuse and were being abused. 

 

I outlined several ways the state could restrict the gross monetization of cameras while not costing the cities an arm and a leg to implement, and not requiring a patrol car at the intersection. 

 

17 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Assume you relax certain areas of the law to allow cameras, what would you do to ensure the proper protections to motorists under what you would propose and also to ensure you do not have such a situation like what happened in Elmwood Place, which I think any reasonable person would consider it a gross abuse of state power.

 

read my past posts for several ideas. Require county auditors to verify accuracy of cameras. Cap the revenue municipalities can generate from cameras. Require a certain threshold for speeding or running red lights so municipalities can't set it to flag 1mph over the limit or 1 second after the light turns red. Require transparency for the registered vehicle's zip code for all vehicles cited, and all vehicles flagged but not cited.

 

But this is what we should be paying our delegation in the statehouse to solve to protect from cases like Elmwood Place from happening, but giving the cities some recourse for the entitled drivers speeding through the cities without consequences. I'm not going to come up with every potential issue and solution while at work.

^Or we could task police officers with being visible and enforcing traffic laws, like back in the good 'ol days under Chief Blackwell. 

 

https://www.wlwt.com/article/chief-orders-new-beacon-lights-on-cincinnati-police-cruisers/3537230

 

Instead, Cranley forced Blackwell out of town and replaced him with that slug, Elliot Isaac.  Soon after, the motocross bike crowds were popping wheelies down sidewalks.  Quads were doing figure-8's in the middle of busy intersections like they're Shriners.   It went from many police officers actively patrolling UC, Walnut Hills, etc., at all hours, to going days without seeing a cruiser and months without seeing someone pulled over.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Require county auditors to verify accuracy of cameras. Cap the revenue municipalities can generate from cameras.

This was already addressed by the legislation that came from the Elmwood situation in OH410 Bill

 

5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Require a certain threshold for speeding or running red lights so municipalities can't set it to flag 1mph over the limit or 1 second after the light turns red.

You can set this standard but it is only as good as the calibration on that day would be and how regularly they are inspected. My point on the inspections are that it is easy to require auditors to undertake this task but it does not always mean this is done or done to the manner that would be deemed appropriate to monitor the situation. You can pass a law, but if the people in charge do not enforce it, it does not mean much. Simply requiring a threshold is not enough, you need to have/offer much more transparency and ease of access to records for the general public  (but on the flip side, will that inundate city governments with tons of FOIA requests and other records requests) Point being it is not always as easy as just passing a law. 

 

 

 

I get that it is not your job to come up with these ideas, but is it really the legislatures? Remember, many of them are not fans of cameras either. Why should they come up with a system that they do not agree with?  Also, when you have local county employees or agencies who have to enforce the new laws but do not have the staff or budget to do so, how do you force the people to efficiently enforce it (yes, it would be legislated, but beyond a nominal check the box enforcement, you do not have a true watchdog who really cares about the task or puts more than nominal effort into checking the box)?

Full transparency: I deleted two posts by E Rocc and Brutus that were just starting a Democrat vs Republican argument. It provided no benefit to this thread, and wasn't worth moving to another thread.