Welcome Guest!
WIn order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Parking in Waterloo Region
Parking, in this case, is something meted out on the basis of being in the area for only a couple hours if you want it to be free. Part of that exchange is that you follow through on not being there, and this system merely enforces that.

As is, the system can be very unobtrusive. It takes a plate and assigns it a geographic marker, no need for the plate to ever be referenced against any associated personal details. The next go-around, it takes a second look at plates, changing some GPS locations from "occupied by plate ABCD 123" to "empty", others from "empty" to "Occupied by plate 123 ABC", and when it comes across a GPS parking location where it attempts to submit the same plate within a 2h limit, only then does it either have the driver pull over and manually perform the ticket-writing-task, or else send the data for submission for a mailed ticket.

Sometimes, I feel privacy goes too far. Someone took my partner's bag while at the mall, and despite knowing we were under cameras throughout the mall, Cadillac-Fairview refused to look at them to see who stole from us.
Reply
(01-17-2017, 03:23 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Dan, how about we stick with reality.  And I'm glad that you seem to agree with me in reality.

The reality is that I believe drivers should treat, and be treated, as though driving is a privilege.  Just because the reality is that there are hardships to losing the ability to driving doesn't mean that an entitlement attitude should be accepted.
Reply
Viewfromthe42, I agree that system is fine. Further, I think its reasonable for the cameras in a public location to be used to see who performed an illegal act. And in fact, I would hazard a guess that your case had nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with laziness / unwillingness to get involved in something that didn't effect them.

My point was that if, say, the license plates were all sent back to a central location with location + time and preservered, that is an invasion of privacy (imo). I don't think its reasonable for the Government to be able to track and store someone's location just because they drive. I think the "Driving is a privilege not a right" is a very poor argument in for anything.

As an example, the system that you described is reasonable in that it helps enforce very reasonable parking laws. That's the rationale that makes it ok to me. Similarly, an automatic facial detection system used in public to identify pre-selected high-risk individuals with no data being collected or preserved would also be ok with me.
Reply
'I think the "Driving is a privilege not a right" is a very poor argument in for anything.'

I think there might be a word missing there- is a very poor argument "in and of itself" for anything? Plenty of policies being used in the real world are based on the argument that driving is not a right in the same way as, say, walking down the street. You can be stopped by police while driving without any evidence of wrongdoing, for instance. That's not the case when walking down the street, thankfully (though, in practice, the right to walk down the street is unfortunately not always respected).

You're dead right that using license plate recognition to record vehicles' locations would be an invasion of privacy. There need to be safeguards to make sure that information is destroyed.

Using facial recognition software in public places shouldn't be entertained. I note that you say "high-risk individuals," and not even "individuals with outstanding warrants." Well, the popular notions of "high-risk" could easily shift in the future, and putting an infrastructure in place to restrict people's basic freedoms with such ease is a bad idea.

Edit: I apologize for (again) veering off topic. Generally I think chutten's initial post at least highlighting that there are possible privacy concerns to ALPR was probably enough, so sorry for going on.
Reply
(01-17-2017, 06:36 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: My point was that if, say, the license plates were all sent back to a central location with location + time and preservered, that is an invasion of privacy (imo).  I don't think its reasonable for the Government to be able to track and store someone's location just because they drive. 

Everyone has their own opinion, and I won't say yours is wrong... but I feel the exact opposite when it comes to licence plates. 

The licence plate is a marker (which remains the property of the provincial government) for an automobile, not a person.  The data collected states that vehicle was here at this time.  It records no information on the driver and/or passengers.  If there is an infraction, the registered owner of the vehicle gets a ticket.  If there is no infraction, I couldn't care less that the city knows where/when my car was, nor do I care how long they keep that info.  The Government isn't able to track and store someone's location, just the car's.  If my wife takes my car Uptown, it records the same data as if I or my daughter had my car.  [Rogers (a private, for-profit corporation) can track my every move as my cell phone contract is with them... that scares me more, but no one ever talks about that]

By-law have been using hand held ticket writers for 15+ years, and data storage of violators have been stored just as long. [Non-violating data was deleted off each device at the end of each shift when I worked in Kitchener, Brampton and Toronto ... and I assume other cities did the same]

If someone is so concerned about Big Brother knowing where their car is parked, then don't park using a city owned space [Lot or on-street], or if you are doing something illegal or unethical and need to hide your location, hire a cab/Uber. Smile

Coke
Reply
There's a pretty high correlation between where a vehicle is and where the people that own/operate that vehicle regularly are as well.  And I think you'd be surprised at how well that data can be used to derive a lot of very personal information about you.  Where you work.  Where you shop.  What activities you participate in.  Etc.

For the Rogers comment, that's certainly true.  But its something you opt-in to.  And you can opt-out of as well.

Storing violating data seems reasonable.  Loss of rights is one of the reasonable consequences of doing something wrong.  And storing non-violating data locally for a shift also seems entirely reasonable to me.

And I 100% disagree with statements like "If someone is so concerned about Big Brother knowing where their car is parked, then don't park using a city owned space [Lot or on-street], or if you are doing something illegal or unethical and need to hide your location, hire a cab/Uber.".
Reply
(01-19-2017, 11:02 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: There's a pretty high correlation between where a vehicle is and where the people that own/operate that vehicle regularly are as well.  And I think you'd be surprised at how well that data can be used to derive a lot of very personal information about you.  Where you work.  Where you shop.  What activities you participate in.  Etc.

For the Rogers comment, that's certainly true.  But its something you opt-in to.  And you can opt-out of as well.

Storing violating data seems reasonable.  Loss of rights is one of the reasonable consequences of doing something wrong.  And storing non-violating data locally for a shift also seems entirely reasonable to me.

And I 100% disagree with statements like "If someone is so concerned about Big Brother knowing where their car is parked, then don't park using a city owned space [Lot or on-street], or if you are doing something illegal or unethical and need to hide your location, hire a cab/Uber.".

While I agree there are correlations, they are not absolute.  (A city lot doesn't provide for only one business/employer... info could be obtained you shop in Uptown or work in the Charles St W area, but not specifics)

I am well aware of data collection... I know my store loyalty cards record what I buy, and provide coupons for things tailored for me. 

I can't opt-out of Rogers/Bell/Freedom knowing where I am w/o turning off my signal.  The opt-out is unreasonable, no different than you can opt-out of plate collection by not owning a car.

It seems we agree that the current "status quo" is reasonable, and I hope Waterloo means "as long as necessary" is a reference to violation data until a court date.

While many value their privacy more than I, I made that statement as there are always ways to avoid Big Brother's eyes (at least in the now).  Pay at a private or city lot.  No one is forcing you to use the privacy violating (aka "free parking") option.  My second line goes to those who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, and instead blame others (ie. The woman who sued Rogers for sending detailed billing and her husband learned of her affair (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/05...posed.html), The cheating spouse caught with her boyfriend in a red light camera ticket (http://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/10/re...ating.html), the suspect who's alibi was disproven as his cell phone was traced using cell towers to be at home, then the site of a murder, then back home (https://www.digitalforensicsmagazine.com...cle&id=608).

Coke
Reply
Hey, Coke, I’d like to thank you for continually being our resident subject matter on parking, and specifically for the answer you gave in the Ion thread to danbrotherston’s question about enforcement of vehicles parked on sidewalks. I was curious about that, too, so I appreciate the clear answer!
Reply
Coke, the opt-out IS different.  I can choose my cellular provider and get equivalent service from a competitor with very little hardship.  I can't choose an alternative Government w/o significant hardship.  Thus (and for many other reasons - like the Government controls the police and the ability to restrict my freedom), I think Government should be held to a much higher standard.

And, again, telling someone not to use a service that the Government is providing (and we're paying for!) in order to protect basic rights (like privacy) isn't reasonable, imo.

But we're probably rehashing stuff now.

And I'd like to second MidTowner's post.
Reply
(01-19-2017, 12:39 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Coke, the opt-out IS different.  I can choose my cellular provider and get equivalent service from a competitor with very little hardship.  I can't choose an alternative Government w/o significant hardship.  Thus (and for many other reasons - like the Government controls the police and the ability to restrict my freedom), I think Government should be held to a much higher standard.

And, again, telling someone not to use a service that the Government is providing (and we're paying for!) in order to protect basic rights (like privacy) isn't reasonable, imo.

But we're probably rehashing stuff now.

And I'd like to second MidTowner's post.

Not that I want to wade into this conversation, but the opt out example is wrong. You can't opt out from one provider and opt into another provider to avoid tracking. ALL providers track.

However, in both the case of cars, and of phones, you can opt out of using that service.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links