Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pegasus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!pegasus!mzal
From: mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: (A Sermon on) Radar Surveillance
Message-ID: <2510@pegasus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 17:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: pegasus.2510
Posted: Mon Aug 12 17:09:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:31:15 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 85

>> My original pro-detector remarks:
>> 1. They alert you to radar traps ahead, where traffic will slow
>>    down unexpectedly.  They alert you to situations where a
>>    police car - and potentially a hazard - is ahead.  In short,
>>    they encourage you to be prepared for potential hazards.
>> 
>> 2. The claimed purpose of radar detectors (claimed by the manufacturers,
>>    that is) is to remind you to check your speed at times when it
>>    is particularly important.  Unless you drive a burned out Datsun
>>    B210, you might find that either (a) it is easy to creep past the
>>    speed limit without necessarily intending to do so, or (b) you
>>    have to spend a lot of driving time looking at your speedometer
>>    (instead of the road) if you want to obey the law.

>  From: braman@dataio.UUCP (Rick Braman)
>        ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!braman
>  ... I don't agree with the above statements.  I would like to meet
>  just one person who **REALLY** bought a radar detector just for **SAFETY**
>  reasons.  I have never talked to anyone who owns one that didn't admit
>  that the real reason they purchased one was to avoid speeding tickets.

Politics is the art of lies and illusions.  As such, if one wants a
political victory, one must live with lies, repeating them often and
with sincerity.  Any good politician (Reagan comes to mind) can do this.
I don't so much believe in my arguments as I believe that using
these safety (motherhood) arguments can be a good way to sway others.  

>>  Me again:
>>  I'm also not a big fan of getting speeding tickets.  However, the
>>  idea that radar guns represents random electronic surveilance is
>>  not necessarily unreasonable.  For example, the model K-55 radar
>>  gun has an auto speed alarm which will go off whenever it detects
>>  something in its field which is moving faster than a preset speed.
>>  This requires no intervention on the part of the patrol officer.

>  From: joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch)
>        pegasus!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!peora!joel
>        Give me a break!!  How can anyone  insist  that  operating  an
>        automobile  on a public highway is a private act?  It stretchs
>        the definition of  privacy  all  out  of  its  normal  limits.
>        Operating  an  automobile  on a public highway is part of your
>        public behavior.

The Auto Speed Lock on the K-55 requires only that the office dial
in a speed.  The idea is that, without the officer even making an
attempt to isolate a source (speeder), the alarm will go off when
a signal (speeder) is detected above the preset speed.  Take note
that there is no probable cause because the officer has identified
no suspect.  NJ State Police policy forbids use of this feature
(see the case NJ vs. Wojtkowiak).

Note that there is nothing in my description that claims that
driving is a private act.  In fact, I don't claim that use of
radar must be bad, I'm simply showing another way of looking
at a problem.  You may not agree that having police cars
automatically check everything in their path with radar (without
even pointing the radar gun) is random electronic surveilance,
but I hope you'd agree that it is not unreasonable that it could
be preceived as such.

As for the idea of "stretching the definition of privacy all out
of its normal limits", I'd rather err on the side of
individual privacy than give the government additional power.

>>  Me again:
>>  Now, how is looking for "interesting speeds" different from the
>>  government's (past/present?) policy of scanning international calls
>>  for "interesting words"?  

>  From: bjorn@dataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson)
>        ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!bjorn
>  You know when you get your drivers lic. that the police have radar
>  guns and they use them.  Thus when you see a police car beside the road
>  you know you are being spied on.  However, with wiretaps you have no
>  way of knowing when you are being spied on.

If, when you got your phone, it came with a note -
NOTICE: ALL CALLS MADE ARE SUBJECT TO RANDOM SAMPLING BY GOVERNMENT
AGENTS. - would that be okay?

You also don't know you're being spied on when the spies are
hiding in trees and over hills.

-- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z
   Zaleski@Rutgers   [ allegra, ihnp4 ] pegasus!mzal