Police Demand Google Maps Remove New ‘Speed Trap’ Feature

[mr moose]

We have no such laws in Australia, not that I can find anyway.   With the exception of a few very specific outlines (no cameras in toilets and change rooms or court rooms) there is no law that says you have to get permission before publishing images. 

 

Which is funny because I witnessed a cop tell a bunch of teenagers it was specifically a criminal offense to publish a photo of someone without their consent.   Mind you this cop also said google owned Facebook so I am not surprised she didn't understand the laws.

 

 

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

We have no such laws in Australia, not that I can find anyway.   With the exception of a few very specific outlines (no cameras in toilets and change rooms or court rooms) there is no law that says you have to get permission before publishing images. 

 

Which is funny because I witnessed a cop tell a bunch of teenagers it was specifically a criminal offense to publish a photo of someone without their consent.   Mind you this cop also said google owned Facebook so I am not surprised she didn't understand the laws.

 

 

Wikipedia says that its illegal to publish without consent if the footage is intended for commercial use. Filming is OK, just not publishing and if its non commercial then its unrestricted.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Sorry but it really does...

 

https://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-public/filming-in-public.html

 

While out in public in England you can film almost anything and anyone without any permission needed. Heck its actually not illegal to film children in England as long as the images are not indecent.

Without having looked in to it I am willing to bet that applies to person operated cameras and not CCTV or similar.

 

Here's the first 2 hits on Google for 'UK CCTV Laws'

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property

https://surreyfire.co.uk/cctv-legislation/

 

Quote

– The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
– The Surveillance Camera Code of Practice 2013 (the ‘SCCOP’)
– The Data Protection Act (the ‘DPA’)

So without reading those and other related material I'm 100% sure there is a difference between a person filming in public and a fixed installed camera.

 

As I keep saying situation and operation matters. Dig deeper and make sure what you are saying is definitely correct to the context. I'm not sure about UK laws but I don't get the feeling you've looked in to it enough to be saying what you are and that it applies equally to everything because it looks like that is not the case.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Without having looked in to it I am willing to bet that applies to person operated cameras and not CCTV or similar.

 

Here's the first 2 hits on Google for 'UK CCTV Laws'

https://surreyfire.co.uk/cctv-legislation/#targetText=CCTV legislation was introduced in,by the Data Protection Act.&targetText=The SCCOP legislation is designed,to CCTV for commercial use.

https://surreyfire.co.uk/cctv-legislation/

 

So without reading those and other related material I'm 100% sure there is a difference between a person filming in public and a fixed installed camera.

Those rules apply to CCTV in private areas, in a public area they don't apply. They don't have to because there are very few restrictions on filming in public anyway.

 

The way it works is like this, you cannot reasonably claim that you want your picture to be restricted under any type of legislation when you are out in public in full view of everyone and are already being filmed, probably multiple times simultaneously. Its called a public area so you don't have any reasonable expectation to privacy (the one exception is a public toilet where it is illegal). You cannot ask to be not filmed, you cannot ask for footage to be deleted and you cannot ask for footage to not be published without a court order. You can't even be asked to not film a private area as long as you're stood in a public area while doing it.

 

AFAIK the only exceptions are Army bases or if the Police have a section 60 order in place for an area in which case they can order you to stop filming and move on. I believe there is also a specific law about filming directly into peoples private homes for pretty obvious reasons.

 

Also we're discussing members of the public filming police officers to share their location so its going to be hand held.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Those rules apply to CCTV in private areas, in a public area they don't apply. They don't have to because there are very few restrictions on filming in public anyway.

 

Quote

If you operate CCTV outside of the boundary of your property and don’t privacy mask, then you may need to register as a CCTV operator with the Information Commissioner’s Office. Get in touch to check.

 

 

Edit:

Quote

The SCCOP legislation is designed to balance the need for CCTV cameras with the public’s right to privacy. Some of the SCCOP only applies to CCTV for commercial use.

 

The DPA legislation gives individuals the right to see information held about them, including CCTV recordings.

 

If you have residential CCTV, you are NOT affected by the DPA, unless your cameras are set up to record beyond the boundary of your property (e.g. the pavement)

I'm pretty sure that means they apply to public areas.

 

8 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Also we're discussing members of the public filming police officers to share their location so its going to be hand held.

True but I still don't think what you're saying is correct to things like CCTV and fixed installed cameras. It's not taking me much time to find information that says otherwise.

[Master Disaster]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

 

Thats interesting because I know a person who has CCTV cameras on the front of their house filming down the street and I know that if theres an incident the police sometimes knock on this persons door and ask to view the footage.

 

Literally 2 houses down from me have a camera on the front porch looking out onto the street.

 

Actually my Mum has a camera looking over her front garden and the street beyond.

 

I'm guessing thats a commercial premises filming out onto the public street?

 

IIRC the police have a scheme in place right now where they'll give you a camera as long as you place it looking out onto the street and let them view the footage if they want.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-and-amazon-build-surveillance-state-with-free-all-seeing-doorbells-dwdt3t6q0

[Master Disaster]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

 

 

Edit:

I'm pretty sure that means they apply to public areas.

 

True but I still don't think what you're saying is correct to things like CCTV and fixed installed cameras. It's not taking me much time to find information that says otherwise.

I'll concede it looks like you're correct about fixed cameras however I promise you the police don't care and actually actively encourage people to put CCTV looking out onto the street.

[Trik'Stari]

On 10/26/2019 at 3:10 PM, rcmaehl said:

Didn't a different Police Department demand the same for Waze?

(Waze still has this feature so I'm assuming they failed miserably)

Probably because the concept that "letting other people know a police officer is up ahead is illegal" is about as defensible as murdering someone because "they looked at you crossways".

 

They are a "public servant" and are "in public". You have little to no reasonable expectation of privacy (in regards to your location) when sitting on the side of a public road. End of fucking story.

 

If police really want to make people safer, get off your asses, and start pulling people over for not signaling properly, or driving too slow (not just in the left hand lane).

[kpluck]

On 10/26/2019 at 2:17 PM, Arika S said:

How about people just don't speed? 

Wouldn't having the police officers out and in plain view help that cause? I don't know too many people that feel comfortable speeding past law enforcement on the road. Prevention of crime is a far better solution than to use criminal activity as a source of revenue.

 

-kp

[Arika]

1 minute ago, kpluck said:

Wouldn't having the police officers out and in plain view help that cause? I don't know too many people that feel comfortable speeding past law enforcement on the road. Prevention of crime is a far better solution than to use criminal activity as a source of revenue.

why do you need police around to not break the law?

[Fasterthannothing]

This is so dumb Waze has had this for years. It doesn't hurt anyone except the cops loosing revenue from stupid tickets for going miniscule amounts over the limit. Now I'm curious is Waze or Google maps will have better reporting. Heck even before waze was around there were people that created a live speed trap system that pulled info from a form and could be used live from a blackberry. The only edge case of someone using this to speed excessively was a guy set a record using that technology he also had every other piece of technology he could possibly have to combat tickets. 

 

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Wikipedia says that its illegal to publish without consent if the footage is intended for commercial use. Filming is OK, just not publishing and if its non commercial then its unrestricted.

That basically just means they can't use your photo in marketing material.  but for everything else if you want to have it removed you have to prove defamation or invasion of privacy.

 

 

[Froody129]

Yo, all you people who think speeding is cool, and that you're so special that you can do it safely are dicks. Speed somewhere where you won't kill me when an accident happens, like on a race track, where speeding is the aim 

[ryao]

On 10/26/2019 at 2:37 PM, wANKER said:

Okay, someone help me here. 

 

Speed traps are meant to deter people from speeding, therefore increasing the safety of the roads. Yes? 

 

So, If i know where a speed trap is, I'm going to slow down anyway..... 

....

.........

...

.....................

 

 

Personally, I would admit to technically 'speeding' 70% of the time. 

Because if i don't, I have some total cunt right up my arse. 

And having been rear ended on a bike, it ain't fun 

I recall reading that studies show that people drive at the same speed on a given road regardless of what the government does, so it dies not matter very much, I read that in reference to speed limits.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

On 10/26/2019 at 3:34 PM, ManyCoresGuy said:

You should see how fast everyone drives here in Southern California. There are few stretches of freeway that everyone is driving at an average speed of 85 - 90 mph like its nothing. Also when you look thru there their windows, sure enough you see the waze app on their phones hahaha!

Curious. In urban areas I've driven in Riverside and San Diego Counties, people usually drive below the speed limits. With the exception of I-10 between Blight (Blythe) and the Coachella Valley, in non-urban areas on I-10, I-215, and I-15, most people also drive at the speed limit or a little below.

On 10/26/2019 at 4:28 PM, TempestCatto said:

I fail to understand this reasoning. You can't possibly constantly look at your speedo, it's simply not safe...

Two words: cruise control. Even without cruise control, it's not that difficult to quickly glance at the speedo every few seconds or so.

[SpeedDemonAdam88]

One thing I think these claims to remove the feature neglect to mention is in my experience in Google Maps you only see the speed traps when you set a route and begin navigating. Even then it only shows those reported along your route. It is not like people pull up google maps and browse to find speed traps online. 

[TempestCatto]

41 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Curious. In urban areas I've driven in Riverside and San Diego Counties, people usually drive below the speed limits. With the exception of I-10 between Blight (Blythe) and the Coachella Valley, in non-urban areas on I-10, I-215, and I-15, most people also drive at the speed limit or a little below.

Around here people will typically do 65-75 in a 55. Or even 55-65 in a 45.

 

42 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Two words: cruise control. Even without cruise control, it's not that difficult to quickly glance at the speedo every few seconds or so.

Older vehicles don't have it, and it's a bad idea to use when the roads are wet, windy, hilly, etc. Only on the highway does it make sense. And glancing at the speedo every few seconds is just as dangerous as staring directly at it. I only ever glance at mine maybe once in a few mins, or if I feel like something is off.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

and it's a bad idea to use when the roads are wet, windy, hilly, etc.

No it isn't.... cruse control disengages as soon as you brake and then you can just active it again. As for windy it's safer to use cruse control and concentrate purely on driving/control of the car, if it's not safe to drive at 70MPH set it to 65MPH.

 

If you are needing to apply the brakes often, which disengages cruse control, then you are not in a situation where you need it or are driving at the speed limit either.

[TempestCatto]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No it isn't.... cruse control disengages as soon as you brake and then you can just active it again. As for windy it's safer to use cruse control and concentrate purely on driving/control of the car, if it's not safe to drive at 70MPH set it to 65MPH.

 

If you are needing to apply the brakes often, which disengages cruse control, then you are not in a situation where you need it or are driving at the speed limit either.

It's literally something can kill you if it's raining or the roads are wet. CC will not disengage when you hydroplane. Also I'm not talking windy as in the wind blows, I'm talking windy (i may be misspelling it) as in the road is twisty and curvy.

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

It's literally something can kill you if it's raining or the roads are wet. CC will not disengage when you hydroplane. Also I'm not talking windy as in the wind blows, I'm talking windy (i may be misspelling it) as in the road is twisty and curvy.

Oh yea lol, well like I said you'd not be traveling at the speed limit in that situation so CC is moot for that. As for hydroplaning any touch of the accelerator or brake turns it off immediately with no delay, if you can't control it CC on or off would make no difference. The worst thing you can do in that situation is come completely off the accelerator or brake anyway so for anyone with zero experience with hydroplaning CC would actually be safer as there would be no change in accelerator position which is the least worst option edit: out of the bad options

 

CC does not change the safe driving speed, if you were going to manually drive slower then you set CC to that lower speed.

[TempestCatto]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

any touch of the accelerator or brake turns it off immediately

I have one vehicle with CC and it's from 1998 so maybe I don't have this feature. But I've never known CC to turn off with a press of the accelerator. In my car, I press the accelerator with CC on, and I just speed up. However CC will slow me back down to the set speed and keep it there.

 

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The worst thing you can do in that situation is come completely off the accelerator

Coming off the accelerator is a good thing. I've been in those situations before, you keep your wheel totally straight and come off the gas asap, and do not touch the brakes.

[Lowbuget]

On 10/26/2019 at 1:36 PM, OlympicAssEater said:

I am dead serious don't like the police officer. Every time a police car gets behind, I get nervous like the police officer waiting to pull the siren when I speeding 5mph over the speed limit.

a person who is doing illegal things(5% of the time some cops are just assholes)  are afraid of police,imo people should just get over it and move on,and if your going to bring up some point about racism i will just say this in advance,as a great man once said "If you  want to stop racism then stop talking about it." that is  what i just got to say in this topic.P.s i hope i did not  offend anyone : D 

[Trik'Stari]

16 hours ago, Arika S said:

why do you need police around to not break the law?

Why do we insist on having speed limits originally intended for cars from decades ago, rather than increasing speed limits and better driver training?

 

I know I can happily say that most of the people in my area should not have drivers licenses. They've no idea what they are doing.

[kpluck]

16 hours ago, Arika S said:

why do you need police around to not break the law?

Why do you distort what people say?

 

-kp

[ManyCoresGuy]

4 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Curious. In urban areas I've driven in Riverside and San Diego Counties, people usually drive below the speed limits. With the exception of I-10 between Blight (Blythe) and the Coachella Valley, in non-urban areas on I-10, I-215, and I-15, most people also drive at the speed limit or a little below.

Two words: cruise control. Even without cruise control, it's not that difficult to quickly glance at the speedo every few seconds or so.

405 S by century city and Irvine area. Then where the 405 N meets the 22 W. Its pretty much the american autobahn.