Police Demand Google Maps Remove New ‘Speed Trap’ Feature

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Wouldn't you achieve a positive result if you show the speed trap locations on map even if cops aren't there? The point is to keep people driving at specified speed. If they do it coz of limit or coz of fear of cops, does it matter? They go by the speed limit in the end whether cops are there or not. If you still don't, it's up to you.

If police departments were smart, they'd cooperate with companies and place fake speed trap locations in places that are known to be usual speeders locations that might endanger others. Map will show possible speed trap and people would slow down there. It's something.

IIRC a few sat navs did this. "Known speed trap area" instead of "police here".

[Master Disaster]

12 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Unless there is some law that says these companies have to stop providing the location of police, this police department can "demand" nothing. The only thing they can do is request that these companies kneel to them. 

The law is actually pretty clear about this (at least here in Europe). While out in public you are deemed to have given up your expected right to privacy and there is nothing you can do to stop anybody from filming you, taking pictures of you or tracking your location. Obviously there are exceptions but generally theres nothing you can do (and yes that includes the police too).

 

That's exactly why it is called being out in public.

[jagdtigger]

41 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

While out in public you are deemed to have given up your expected right to privacy

Then why many EU member ban the usage of dashcams?     There are places where even owning one can get you into trouble.....

[leadeater]

50 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Then why many EU member ban the usage of dashcams?     There are places where even owning one can get you into trouble.....

Probably local laws that differentiate between taking a photograph or video and a fixed install camera/video camera which would come under privacy laws and other regulations. Here you have to be careful if you want to setup home security cameras as you're not allowed to have them framed in a way that captures too much outside your property and one looking over at your neighbors property (more than just a small section of it) is a huge no.

 

And some times all it takes is a certified installer for it to be allowed e.g Tesla wing mirror camera is 100% ok in EU.

[jagdtigger]

Dashcam is used in/on vehicles.....

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Dashcam is used in/on vehicles.....

Still a fixed install.

 

Edit:

The example is fixed install versus holding it in your hand requiring your personal interaction to operate it, thought that was rather clear. Home security and dash cam are likely cover by the same rules.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Still a fixed install.

Its still a paradox. You cant expect privacy on a public place but im banned from using a dashcam because of privacy...... Not to mention how dumb it is. There is no better  witness than a camera that  shows exactly what happened.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its still a paradox. You cant expect privacy on a public place but im banned from using a dashcam because of privacy...... Not to mention how dumb it is. There is no better  witness than a camera that  shows exactly what happened.

That doesn't get around the fact that it is in most countries illegal to just setup a random camera somewhere out in the public and just record video, that is exactly what a dash cam is. Some places are ok with it, some places are not. But you cannot just expect to be able to do long term recording of video of the public when that has actually never been ok.

 

Why do you think TV shows have to get people to sign releases or their image must be blurred, no consent then you aren't allowed to show it. There's tons and tons of grey area in public property and photo/video taking. 

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

That doesn't get around the fact that it is in most countries illegal to just setup a random camera somewhere out in the public and just record video, that is exactly what a dash cam is. Some places are ok with it, some places are not. But you cannot just expect to be able to do long term recording of video of the public when that has actually never been ok.

 

Why do you think TV shows have to get people to sign releases or their image must be blurred, no consent then you aren't allowed to show it. There's tons and tons of grey area in public property and photo/video taking. 

Then self driving cars are illegal too because they have cameras and their recordings are accessible.....  Sorry but my ability to defend myself against fraud and false accusation is above all else(as its a common occurrence when someone rides a motorbike, if there is a accident the motorbiker is guilty until proven otherwise)

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Then self driving cars are illegal too because they have cameras and their recordings are accessible.....  Sorry but my ability to defend myself against fraud and false accusation is above all else(as its a common occurrence when someone rides a motorbike, if there is a accident the motorbiker is guilty until proven otherwise)

Again certified installer so authorities know that what is being done is compliant with local laws. In the same way because I am not certified I am not allowed to install security cameras for a business even if they want me to do it and I was willing to do it I am not allowed to.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

That doesn't get around the fact that it is in most countries illegal to just setup a random camera somewhere out in the public and just record video, that is exactly what a dash cam is. Some places are ok with it, some places are not. But you cannot just expect to be able to do long term recording of video of the public when that has actually never been ok.

 

Why do you think TV shows have to get people to sign releases or their image must be blurred, no consent then you aren't allowed to show it. There's tons and tons of grey area in public property and photo/video taking. 

Thats simply not true. Remember that councils and shops do in fact regularly setup random cameras out in public and film random people every single day.

 

If there are shops with CCTV cameras and CCTV cameras on the streets then it cannot be illegal to film the public without their consent.

 

Also what about tourists taking photos of landmarks?

 

EDIT

 

So according to Wikipedia there are 9 countries in the world that have restrictions in place for public photography, these restrictions vary from needing to seek consent up to full on banned.

 

Canada have some differences depending on which state.

 

Pretty much every where else public photography is almost totally unrestricted. No consent is required at all. Obviously there are exclusions pretty much everywhere (Schools, Military Bases etc) but in general you can film anything you want anywhere you want.

 

There are also restrictions on filming copyrighted material and some places (like Aus & NZ) have restrictions if the footage is intended for commercial use.

 

Like I said previously, its widely recognised that by going out in public you accept that your right to privacy does not apply. If that wasn't the case then public CCTV would be illegal everywhere.

[Beowulff83]

11 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Romulus Police still get lucky on I94 near the airport however. Mind you Romulus traffic enforcement cars are Dodge Chargers and only marked on the passenger side of the car.

Ahh Romulus, I still remember getting a ticket here about 10 years ago.  I thoroughly enjoyed getting scammed.  The officer told me "yeah most people don't see the speed limit drop here, we get a lot of you out of towners.   But here's what you can do.  Write a letter explaining your situation and send it in, in place of your payment and wait for a response they will let you know how to proceed."

 

I received a letter back with a larger fine but the points were removed from my record, which i paid.  What they were doing was ILLEGALLY changing the speeders fines to a parking violation.  Speeding violations have negative points that go against your license record.  Parking violations do not.  Win Win, i don't have any negative points on my license and they make more $. . .

 

I do believe i heard a few years later that the whole police department was under investigation for corruption.

 

Quota or no quota and corruption aside, it doesn't matter.  Local pd and state police actively seek speeders because it's a major source of revenue, keeping the roads safer is just a bonus.  If it suddenly became illegal tomorrow to issue fines for speeding  do you really think  you would see them out in force running radar like they do now?  This may be just the region i live in but our sheriffs departments around here rarely run radar, they are too busy with other things.

 

Just because i have had a few negative run in's with police i try not to let that impact my future interactions with law enforcement.  I don't want to be the person that sours their feelings on why they chose to protect the public.  I try to always be courteous to them.  They do have a rough job and the MAJORITY of them are good individuals.  We need to remember this.   

 

Also a few cops i have talked with have stated that they hate running radar.  They expressed that they didn't take their jobs to sit in a car and issue speeding tickets all day.  Just something to think about. 

 

Sounds to me like this whole thing with google maps isn't about the police but the city's and states that are losing revenue and don't like it.

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, Beowulff83 said:

actively seek speeders

Same here in Hungary. But in my opinion its the lesser of evil's. Ppl who dont give a crap about street signs, red light, yield sign/light, etc.....  Now those are the real problem. Not to mention the smombies(both pedestrians and vehicle drivers).

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Thats simply not true. Remember that councils and shops do in fact regularly setup random cameras out in public and film random people every single day.

 

If there are shops with CCTV cameras and CCTV cameras on the streets then it cannot be illegal to film the public without their consent.

Most of those operate within the store and if outside only on their own seating, further to that they are often installed by a security company who is certified to do it.

 

Edit: And there is signage notifying cameras are in operation.

 

https://nzlaw.co.nz/news/security-cameras-when-does-surveillance-become-an-invasion-of-privacy/#targetText=CCTV and%2For security cameras must not be operated in,the Act have been breached.

https://www.privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Brochures-and-pamphlets-and-pubs/Privacy-and-CCTV-A-guide-October-2009.pdf

 

Just as a note dash cams are legal here but at any point anyone can make a complaint to the Privacy Commission about an incident involving a dash cam, it investigated and you charged with a breach of the Privacy Act, or not charged. "It depends"

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Also what about tourists taking photos of landmarks?

As I said fixed install versus hand held personally operated.

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Pretty much every where else public photography is almost totally unrestricted. No consent is required at all.

Public photography is not the same as a security camera. What you originally posted is correct for that but not for everything. That's the tricky grey area where things cross from fine to not fine just based on how it's used.

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, Beowulff83 said:

do believe i heard a few years later that the whole police department was under investigation for corruption.

5 officers, the police chief and the police chiefs wife all went to a Federal Prison for 28 years. For the record the PD was raided by the state police and FBI twice. There was some indication that the mayor at the time was involved. He was never charged but he did not seek re-election. 

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Thats simply not true.

Michigan law says differently. It’s illegal to film people without consent. That being said security cameras generally don’t apply AND most of the traffic me a sign is present telling you that cameras are present. In some cases those security cameras are linked directly to the police. 
 

I had to check the law because I was looking at dash cams. But the law is pretty clear. I could be cited for filming people without consent. 

[Energycore]

18 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Unless there is some law that says these companies have to stop providing the location of police, this police department can "demand" nothing. The only thing they can do is request that these companies kneel to them. 

They can always request that a bill be written. I don't know the chances that it passes.

[Flying Sausages]

14 hours ago, Donut417 said:

How about doing the posted speed limit? 

 

 

I got one for you. Have you ever seen police actually point out a speed trap? Back in the day...... my city's police department had a speed trap on Eureaka road. They would sit in an employe entrance to Detroit Metro Airport looking for speeders. Posted speed limit was 45. People would do 60 coming out of the airport or coming off I275. They got $100,000 in ticket revenue in like 6 months. Airport police started pulling up behind the Romulus police car and putting its lights on letting people know, ITS A TRAP! Finally the Airport got the county to raise the speed limit to 55. Romulus Police still get lucky on I94 near the airport however. Mind you Romulus traffic enforcement cars are Dodge Chargers and only marked on the passenger side of the car. The lights are internal, so you dont know who they are until they got your ass. The Wayne Country Sherrif only marks their cars on the bumber in very small lettering. Only a few shade lighter than what the car is painted. I think the only police deparment not trying to fuck you over the barrel the the state police in their big Michigan Blue cars with the big ass red light. 

 

Oh for anyone else who visits the metro area. Be careful in the City of Taylor on South bound Telegraph near the Gardener White. Cause the Gardener white cop will get your ass. No joke, hes been there for decades, pulling unsuspected people over. He is practicly a ledgened around these parts. 

Here in FL is crazy mang. People drive like they are asleep on green light but when yellow light appears they will drive like Need For Speed bro. Hit and run is common in FL too. You can be hit as a pedestrian too mang.

[Eaglerino]

I feel like the police should be happier they're pulling less people over

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

They can always request that a bill be written. I don't know the chances that it passes.

They tried this in Arizona once. They made it illegal to flash your high-beams to warn oncoming traffic a cop was nearby, but it got shot down because flashing high beams is considered expression which is under the first amendment. I imagine this has to be the same deal

[Master Disaster]

7 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Michigan law says differently. It’s illegal to film people without consent. That being said security cameras generally don’t apply AND most of the traffic me a sign is present telling you that cameras are present. In some cases those security cameras are linked directly to the police. 
 

I had to check the law because I was looking at dash cams. But the law is pretty clear. I could be cited for filming people without consent. 

Pretty sure it isn't.

Quote

Michigan law also makes it a crime to "install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place." Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. The law defines a "private place" as a place where a person "may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access." Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a. You should always avoid these kinds of surveillance tactics.

 

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law

 

Its only illegal in a private place.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Most of those operate within the store and if outside only on their own seating, further to that they are often installed by a security company who is certified to do it.

 

Edit: And there is signage notifying cameras are in operation.

 

https://nzlaw.co.nz/news/security-cameras-when-does-surveillance-become-an-invasion-of-privacy/#targetText=CCTV and%2For security cameras must not be operated in,the Act have been breached.

https://www.privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/Brochures-and-pamphlets-and-pubs/Privacy-and-CCTV-A-guide-October-2009.pdf

 

Just as a note dash cams are legal here but at any point anyone can make a complaint to the Privacy Commission about an incident involving a dash cam, it investigated and you charged with a breach of the Privacy Act, or not charged. "It depends"

 

As I said fixed install versus hand held personally operated.

 

Public photography is not the same as a security camera. What you originally posted is correct for that but not for everything. That's the tricky grey area where things cross from fine to not fine just based on how it's used.

I wasn't really meaning CCTV in a private area. Shops have them outside (or indoors looking out onto the street) and councils/police have them on streets filming the public all day. Heck the police wear body cameras constantly these days.

 

I can say with 100% certainty that here in England and large parts of Europe theres very few restrictions on filming in public areas.

[TechyBen]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Thats simply not true. Remember that councils and shops do in fact regularly setup random cameras out in public and film random people every single day.

 

If there are shops with CCTV cameras and CCTV cameras on the streets then it cannot be illegal to film the public without their consent.

 

Also what about tourists taking photos of landmarks?

 

EDIT

 

So according to Wikipedia there are 9 countries in the world that have restrictions in place for public photography, these restrictions vary from needing to seek consent up to full on banned.

 

Canada have some differences depending on which state.

 

Pretty much every where else public photography is almost totally unrestricted. No consent is required at all. Obviously there are exclusions pretty much everywhere (Schools, Military Bases etc) but in general you can film anything you want anywhere you want.

 

There are also restrictions on filming copyrighted material and some places (like Aus & NZ) have restrictions if the footage is intended for commercial use.

 

Like I said previously, its widely recognised that by going out in public you accept that your right to privacy does not apply. If that wasn't the case then public CCTV would be illegal everywhere.

You need permission, and in some instances don't get it (cameras can only be inside). [Edit] Which you now see in the Wiki [/edit]

 

You are not wrong on opinion, but are on facts. Go back, read up on it, check what people do vs laws written, and then discuss it. You do have a right to have an opinion and morals, and others may agree (some may not) on it. But the facts are varied as countries are also.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

I feel like the police should be happier they're pulling less people over

They tried this in Arizona once. They made it illegal to flash your high-beams to warn oncoming traffic a cop was nearby, but it got shot down because flashing high beams is considered expression which is under the first amendment. I imagine this has to be the same deal

Generally, cameras seem a publicity thing, and a revenue thing. Soooo... (unintended consequences, see smoking taxes vs the desire to ban smoking ).

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I wasn't really meaning CCTV in a private area. Shops have them outside (or indoors looking out onto the street) and councils/police have them on streets filming the public all day. Heck the police wear body cameras constantly these days.

Yep and just like here if it's not the police they must put signs up saying there are cameras in operation but even that doesn't mean you can put cameras up filming just anything, if I think a cafe is filming something unnecessary I can complain to either the Police or the Privacy Commission and they can look in to. For example a Cafe by a school and they are filming the school grounds and that has zero relevance to their business or their need to be filming that.

 

You still have to be complaint with laws, I don't know exactly what all those are for CCTV which is why I can't install them because it's not an issue of "because I can" it's "can I compliantly" and that would most likely be no.

 

So as similar there is nothing stopping a person installing a dash cam in a car and parking outside a school, or many other things. And even if you had a sign on your window saying this car has a dash cam nobody would expect it to be on and operating if the vehicle is not in use or the ignition on (Tesla is on while ignition off but I think proximity and bump activated).

 

A dash cam is CCTV, being mobile and mounted in a car doesn't change what it is but falls in to the many grey areas because CCTV in general is entirely a grey area.

 

I would expect the UK to be similar if there are not specific laws for CCTV and things similar, comes down to Privacy Laws. Being in a public place does not actually give you carte blanche to film what ever you like for as long as you like. Sure it's public but there are Privacy Laws and other laws that still effect what you are allowed to do and can often come down purely to interpretation and circumstance. You can test that out by going out to a highly populated public place and go around taking photos of every person you can, watch how quickly the police will get called and you removed. 
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I would expect the UK to be similar if there are not specific laws for CCTV and things similar, comes down to Privacy Laws. Being in a public place does not actually give you carte blanche to film what ever you like for as long as you like. Sure it's public but there are Privacy Laws and other laws that still effect what you are allowed to do and can often come down purely to interpretation and circumstance. You can test that out by going out to a highly populated public place and go around taking photos of every person you can, watch how quickly the police will get called and you removed.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

By going out into a public area you automatically waive your implied right to privacy.

[Fetzie]

In Germany dash cams are not forbidden, but there are limitations to what they can do:

 

They cannot record and save everything (it violates data protection laws (BDSG §6, paragraphs 2 and 3) as seen in this judgement). They either have to only save the last few (i.e. 10-15) seconds of video, or only become active when an emergency brake is detected. If the camera is permanently recording, and keeping everything then you can be fined. They can be used as evidence in civil lawsuits but not in criminal court (as the recording is made without the knowledge of the subject and without a judicial warrant).