FT 16.07 - Ban Big Brother Act (DEBATING)

[OBD]

AN ACT
to end unwarranted police surveillance

Section 1 (Title & definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Ban Big Brother Act.” It may be cited as “BBB.”
ii. As it appears in this legislation, “traffic camera” shall refer to any video recording device posted by a state or municipal authority to monitor traffic.

Section 2 (Ban on traffic cameras)
i. Footage obtained from a traffic camera shall not be used to charge any person with a traffic violation or other misdemeanor.

Sponsor: Harry S. Truman (Fianna Fremont - Labor, North Dakota)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My thanks to the speaker.

Protection against warrantless search and seizure is a cornerstone of our Atlasian system of justice, and one that has come under increasing assault in recent years as state and local governments have developed new and more sophisticated ways of spying on their citizens. The liberal use of traffic cameras is one such example. While this legislation would not remove traffic cameras entirely, as they have legitimate uses apart from law enforcement, it would bar localities from using footage derived from traffic cams as the basis for a misdemeanor case.

[OBD]

Wait, so if someone tears down a highway - say OR 217 - at 85 MPH late at night and it only gets caught on traffic camera, what happens? Speeding's obviously a prickly law to enforce, but shouldn't there be some allowances for extreme cases?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Wait, so if someone tears down a highway - say OR 217 - at 85 MPH late at night and it only gets caught on traffic camera, what happens? Speeding's obviously a prickly law to enforce, but shouldn't there be some allowances for extreme cases?

In this example, no-one has been hurt, or they would have been caught, yes? Drivers obviously should obey our traffic laws as much as possible —but I wonder if catching one speeder so that they may be brought to court and forced to pay a fine is worth the cost to our liberty of installing the apparatus of a surveillance state.

[OBD]

Wait, so if someone tears down a highway - say OR 217 - at 85 MPH late at night and it only gets caught on traffic camera, what happens? Speeding's obviously a prickly law to enforce, but shouldn't there be some allowances for extreme cases?

In this example, no-one has been hurt, or they would have been caught, yes? Drivers obviously should obey our traffic laws as much as possible —but I wonder if catching one speeder so that they may be brought to court and forced to pay a fine is worth the cost to our liberty of installing the apparatus of a surveillance state.

Thing is this just seems like enabling extreme speeding, which obviously increases the risks of deadly car crashes and such.

Could you provide an example of HOW traffic cameras infringe on public liberty? From how I see it, they just take pictures of streets and the surrounding areas. Maybe, if the technology is there, we could make them speed-activated somehow or replace them with sensors (and not record footage otherwise)...

[Mike Thick]

OBD: in severe cases like the ones you're talking about, some states allow reckless driving to be charged as a felony. If this bill went through, all states in Frémont would probably move to make those worse offenses chargeable as felonies so they aren't covered by the ban. We could amend in a provision specifically encouraging them to do that if you'd like.

Another issue, though: lots of municipal governments are already locked into multi-year contracts with traffic camera companies, and get millions in revenue out of the cameras. I don't support that system, but we have to be practical -- local budgets are already making serious budget cuts because of the recession, and whether we think traffic cameras are good or not, this would make the shortfalls they're facing worse.

To solve this, I propose the following amendment. No offense taken if it's not friendly, ofc.

AN ACT
to end unwarranted police surveillance

Section 1 (Title & definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Ban Big Brother Act.” It may be cited as “BBB.”
ii. As it appears in this legislation, “traffic camera” shall refer to any video recording device posted by a state or municipal authority to monitor traffic.

Section 2 (Ban on traffic cameras)
i. Footage obtained from a traffic camera shall not be used to charge any person with a traffic violation or other misdemeanor.

Section 3 (Enactment)
i. This Act shall come into effect on October 1st, 2022.
ii. State, county, or municipal governments may apply for temporary exemptions to the provisions of this Act, if they entered into binding contracts with private companies to provide traffic cameras prior to the Act's passage, and said contract ends after the date specified in §3(ii).
a. Such exemptions shall cease upon the expiration of said contract.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Point taken, Ted. My counter would be that as we recently assumed full responsibility for funding community services (such as education and first responders) with the 2020 commonwealth budget, presumably these local governments have dramatically reduced expenses, an in consequence, a sizable budget surplus. I suppose we could as the GM to look into the matter; but regardless, I agree weaning local governments off their budgetary dependence on fines and penalties is a major issue.

Could you provide an example of HOW traffic cameras infringe on public liberty? From how I see it, they just take pictures of streets and the surrounding areas. Maybe, if the technology is there, we could make them speed-activated somehow or replace them with sensors (and not record footage otherwise)...

I should think it's fairly obvious how a system that collects footage of all citizens to be used to bring criminal charges against them is a violation of civil liberties. Imagine for a moment if instead of traffic cams, we assigned police officers to follow citizens around and record their every movement. This amounts to unwarranted surveillance, and the potential for abuse strikes me as not worth catching someone who ran a red light. Obviously when someone is brutally murdered on camera, that is a somewhat different issue, hence why this bill specifies misdemeanor charges.

[Mike Thick]

Valid, Truman. I don't think this expense is significant enough to warrant bugging Lumine about it, so I'll withdraw the amendment.

[OBD]

Could you provide an example of HOW traffic cameras infringe on public liberty? From how I see it, they just take pictures of streets and the surrounding areas. Maybe, if the technology is there, we could make them speed-activated somehow or replace them with sensors (and not record footage otherwise)...

I should think it's fairly obvious how a system that collects footage of all citizens to be used to bring criminal charges against them is a violation of civil liberties. Imagine for a moment if instead of traffic cams, we assigned police officers to follow citizens around and record their every movement. This amounts to unwarranted surveillance, and the potential for abuse strikes me as not worth catching someone who ran a red light. Obviously when someone is brutally murdered on camera, that is a somewhat different issue, hence why this bill specifies misdemeanor charges.

Well, if the traffic cameras are remaining in place (as is implied by the felony exception), then what's so wrong about ticketing people for traffic violations, especially if the surveillance you're concerned about is happening regardless? What if someone's bike gets stolen on camera but the perpetrator can't get prosecuted as bike theft, pending the value of the item in question, may actually be a misdemeanor? If the footage (and resulting violation in civil liberty) is there, why not use it to prosecute obvious violations in the law, and deter practices such as speeding that may be detrimental to public safety? After all, if speeding becomes condoned if no one happens to see it, the probability of injurous car accidents will ultimately increase.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Could you provide an example of HOW traffic cameras infringe on public liberty? From how I see it, they just take pictures of streets and the surrounding areas. Maybe, if the technology is there, we could make them speed-activated somehow or replace them with sensors (and not record footage otherwise)...

I should think it's fairly obvious how a system that collects footage of all citizens to be used to bring criminal charges against them is a violation of civil liberties. Imagine for a moment if instead of traffic cams, we assigned police officers to follow citizens around and record their every movement. This amounts to unwarranted surveillance, and the potential for abuse strikes me as not worth catching someone who ran a red light. Obviously when someone is brutally murdered on camera, that is a somewhat different issue, hence why this bill specifies misdemeanor charges.

Well, if the traffic cameras are remaining in place (as is implied by the felony exception), then what's so wrong about ticketing people for traffic violations, especially if the surveillance you're concerned about is happening regardless? What if someone's bike gets stolen on camera but the perpetrator can't get prosecuted as bike theft, pending the value of the item in question, may actually be a misdemeanor?

Traffic cams have only been a thing for what, 40 years? 30? Somehow we managed to get along before then without society falling apart. The argument that unless we literally spy on our own citizens, no-one will follow the speed limit strikes me as plainly absurd and unsupported by any evidence —in fact, it flies in the face of our experience in cities where these cameras do not exist.

I would be happy to amend this bill to remove all cameras altogether if that would be more to the honorable members liking; this version of the bill was written after a conversation with you some weeks ago, in which you said that traffic cams are sometimes used to deal with safety hazards caused by inclement weather and the like.

As for this:

If the footage (and resulting violation in civil liberty) is there, why not use it to prosecute obvious violations in the law, and deter practices such as speeding that may be detrimental to public safety?

Because that's not how criminal justice works? We don't admit coerced confessions or evidence obtained from the accused's home without a search warrant in court; there is a similar principle at stake here. There is a saying attributed to Blackwell, to the effect that it is better for ten guilty men to go free, than one citizen should be punished unjustly. Ultimately, I'm less concerned that the occasional petty theft might go unnoticed than by the daily abrogation of privacy by the state. Some evils are greater than other evils, and I'm not convinced speeding is the greater evil in this case. If we disagree, we disagree.

[OBD]

Could you provide an example of HOW traffic cameras infringe on public liberty? From how I see it, they just take pictures of streets and the surrounding areas. Maybe, if the technology is there, we could make them speed-activated somehow or replace them with sensors (and not record footage otherwise)...

I should think it's fairly obvious how a system that collects footage of all citizens to be used to bring criminal charges against them is a violation of civil liberties. Imagine for a moment if instead of traffic cams, we assigned police officers to follow citizens around and record their every movement. This amounts to unwarranted surveillance, and the potential for abuse strikes me as not worth catching someone who ran a red light. Obviously when someone is brutally murdered on camera, that is a somewhat different issue, hence why this bill specifies misdemeanor charges.

Well, if the traffic cameras are remaining in place (as is implied by the felony exception), then what's so wrong about ticketing people for traffic violations, especially if the surveillance you're concerned about is happening regardless? What if someone's bike gets stolen on camera but the perpetrator can't get prosecuted as bike theft, pending the value of the item in question, may actually be a misdemeanor?

Traffic cams have only been a thing for what, 40 years? 30? Somehow we managed to get along before then without society falling apart. The argument that unless we literally spy on our own citizens, no-one will follow the speed limit strikes me as plainly absurd and unsupported by any evidence —in fact, it flies in the face of our experience in cities where these cameras do not exist.

I would be happy to amend this bill to remove all cameras altogether if that would be more to the honorable members liking; this version of the bill was written after a conversation with you some weeks ago, in which you said that traffic cams are sometimes used to deal with safety hazards caused by inclement weather and the like.

As for this:

If the footage (and resulting violation in civil liberty) is there, why not use it to prosecute obvious violations in the law, and deter practices such as speeding that may be detrimental to public safety?

Because that's not how criminal justice works? We don't admit coerced confessions or evidence obtained from the accused's home without a search warrant in court; there is a similar principle at stake here. There is a saying attributed to Blackwell, to the effect that it is better for ten guilty men to go free, than one citizen should be punished unjustly. Ultimately, I'm less concerned that the occasional petty theft might go unnoticed than by the daily abrogation of privacy by the state. Some evils are greater than other evils, and I'm not convinced speeding is the greater evil in this case. If we disagree, we disagree.

You make fair points, though I'm still not completely sold on this bill. Given that this will likely pass, I intend to vote 'present' when it comes to the floor.

[OBD]

If that's all people have to say on this, shall we proceed to vote?

[OBD]

Bump.

[Mike Thick]

Motion for a final vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I second the motion.

[OBD]

Vote opened. 48 hours.

Present.

[Tirnam]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye!

[OBD]

Ban Big Brother Act
Frémont Parliament Bill 16.07 - Sponsored by Harry S. Truman, FM

	LAB	IND	TOTAL
Aye	2	0	2
Nay	0	0	0
Abstain	1	0	1
Not Present	1	1	2

	FF	BB	ML	SF	TOTAL
Aye	2	0	0	0	2
Nay	0	0	0	0	0
Abstain	0	0	0	1	1
Not Present	0	1	1	0	2

First Minister HARRY S TRUMAN of North Dakota (LAB/FF)
Mr. AUSTRALIANSWINGVOTER of Washington (IND/ML)
Mr. TIRNAM of California (LAB/FF)
Mr. SCOTT of Wyoming(LAB/BB)
Mr. OREGON BLUE DOG of Oregon (LAB/SF)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AN ACT
to end unwarranted police surveillance

Section 1 (Title & definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Ban Big Brother Act.” It may be cited as “BBB.”
ii. As it appears in this legislation, “traffic camera” shall refer to any video recording device posted by a state or municipal authority to monitor traffic.

Section 2 (Ban on traffic cameras)
i. Footage obtained from a traffic camera shall not be used to charge any person with a traffic violation or other misdemeanor.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay ftr