[LEGAL?] Digital Snitching On Police - Comments Page 1

Category: Privacy



All Comments on: "[LEGAL?] Digital Snitching On Police"

Comment Page: 1 |  2 

Posted by:

Pete
11 Feb 2019

“Quotas” Do I really need to say more? End of Month? Look out!

Posted by:

Neil in Dallas
11 Feb 2019

Waze does not interfere or disrupt the mission of the police.
Their mission is to achieve peace and safety.
Their mission is NOT to catch criminals.

READ that carefully!!
Catching criminals is only a methodology of achieving their mission but it is NOT dependant or required to achieve their mission.
My wife's caustic comments in the passenger seat (Hey, watch it. You're speeding) achieves the same thing.
A squad car parked on the side of the road achieves the same thing.
It all causes the traffic to slow down.
In summary, the police mission is NOT one of "Gotcha!!"
I support the police but they would lose this case in court.

Posted by:

David
11 Feb 2019

Many years ago, a town in south GA was notorious for being a speed trap, among other ways of fleecing tourists. The governor put up billboards at the two main entrances warning people about it.

Posted by:

Daniel
11 Feb 2019

The councilmen, mayors, etc. of our cities need to read (or re-read) "1984". It is way past time for our leaders to steer away from being big brother and return to the concept that police are there "To Protect and To Serve". Whatever means we can use to communicate with other drivers is fine. Budget without any prospect of tickets and fines coming in. But carry the previous quarter's fines and fees into the new year as available to budget.

Posted by:

GWC
11 Feb 2019

I believe the 1st amendment rights on freedom of speech covers this well. I have the right to communicate whether it be by using WAZE or flashing my lights or holding a sign.

Posted by:

Bill Daniel
11 Feb 2019

I believe it is a safety issue and allows traffic to slow down and change lanes as required in Texas. Some of us don't speed anyway.

Posted by:

Fernando Anguita
11 Feb 2019

I tought that the first goal of road controls is to persuade the drivers to comply with the law.

This is just a commercial interest of City Halls not to give away the lucrative business of police speed tickets and fines.

The presence of the icons prevents reckless and drinking and driving among most people (you will not prevent it among morons), as you can see there are controls ahead... and you can always be the first one on a new control point... so there is no way using the app is warranty of avoiding punishment.

Furthermore, police officers can even use the app to install virtual police controls within the area, making a more visible presence among drivers, having a higher virtual presence that can provide a higher sense of control and prevent offenders.

Technology is here to stay, learn to live with it and learn how to benefit yourself (also yourself as the police) of the new tools available. Adapt to survive, and search for ways to make the changes benefit the main objective... prevention.

IMHO.

Posted by:

Robert Quance
11 Feb 2019

Waze has cut into illegal Police revenue so some Police Depts. cry foul. In law,
Waze is totally legal in what it does.

Posted by:

snert
11 Feb 2019

a lot of people behind the wheel aren't very bright, many will still be caught!!!

Posted by:

RandiO
11 Feb 2019

If my multiple-choice selection is going to be between (A)Using a google product/service or (B)Having to use my own senses to navigate the roadways (above the posted limits); I will always avoid the price of convenience offered as being free.

Posted by:

Louis Toscano
11 Feb 2019

Radar detectors do much of this. Why don't the police protest those?

Posted by:

thomas felock
11 Feb 2019

blame the politicians ...better yet...clean up the whole political scene!!!!!!!!!!!! I for one would be the first to buy a car that must stay within the speed limit and carmakers should be ORDERED to build them!!!!!!

Posted by:

Kim Ludwig
11 Feb 2019

I feel that it is ok for Waze to warn of police presence because most people will slow down when they are warned. Isn't this what the police want, for us to drive safely and follow the rules? The only reason why they would not want this help from Waze is if they were trying to catch people to make a profit. Then of course, Waze would be interfering with their intent.

Posted by:

CRW
11 Feb 2019

"I for one would be the first to buy a car that must stay within the speed limit and carmakers should be ORDERED to build them!!!!!!" Which speed limit? When? Speed limits vary greatly based on location and time. Vehicles with GPS can't even avoid closed roads. I for one would be the LAST to buy a car that must stay within the speed limit and carmakers should NOT BE ALLOWED to build them!!!!!! Situations exist where the ability to go faster than the legal limit is critical to safety and survival. If you are badly injured do you want to be in a vehicle that can't or won't go faster than an arbitrary speed limit on the way to the emergency room?

Posted by:

Dleippe
11 Feb 2019

Although driving is considered a privilege, driving with a mechanical problem should not be a crime with financially devastating potential.
Sober drivers have a right to know where to avoid DWI check points to avoid unnecessary delays. Inebriated drivers can find other "ways" to know how to avoid traffic stops.
NYPD should spend more resources on the real criminals and less time criminalizing the federal right to travel without restrictions...

Posted by:

Carl Demmons
11 Feb 2019

Would you stand lookout for someone robbing a store? (I hope not...) As I see it, there is a law (speed limit), and warning drivers about it is no different from the lookout warning the person robbing the store.
A law is a law.Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

Posted by:

Jim
11 Feb 2019

I went through a checkpoint once back in the 80s and the cop told me "we're just checking to see that everyone has a city sticker in their car" -- I had one, so no problem, but I wondered what they did with people from out of town. I imagine there was a hefty fine for locals who did not have a city sticker in their windshield. I suppose it's legal, but it seems a bit draconian.

Posted by:

Jim
11 Feb 2019

In reply to Louis Toscano: They do. They really hate people with radar detectors. If they pull over a guy with a radar detector, it's almost guaranteed that guy will be ticketed, where another may have gotten a warning. But some court cases have supported the people using radar detectors... possibly because it urges the driver to slow down and drive more carefully. But police still don't like it.

Posted by:

W. Brown
11 Feb 2019

Do you honestly feel safer when impaired drivers can successfully bypass check points?

Posted by:

thenudehamster
11 Feb 2019

A couple of decades ago I was pulled in upstate New York. The officer stated that he 'had me at 72mph' but showed me no evidence. Even the summons to court only had his word. I sent a letter in which I put a motion before the court to dismiss the charge as there was no prima facie case to answer, and heard nothng more.
It was interesting to note that all the cars which were stopped seemed to have out-of-state plates - and there was no 'instant pay' ticket, merely a summons to appear in the local court. I wonder how many motorists paid up because travelling several hundred miles to fight the case was impractical?

Comment Page: 1 |  2 

Read the article that everyone's commenting on.

To post a comment on "[LEGAL?] Digital Snitching On Police"
please return to that article.

Send this article to a friend. Jump to the Comments section. Buy Bob a Snickers. Or check out other articles in this category:





Need More Help? Try the AskBobRankin Updates Newsletter. It's Free!

Prev Article:
[DO IT NOW] Google Password Checkup
Send this article to a friend
The Top Twenty
Next Article:
Why Backup? Here Are NINE Good Reasons (and ANSWERS to YOUR backup questions)

Link to this article from your site or blog. Just copy and paste from this box:


Free Tech Support -- Ask Bob Rankin
RSS    
Subscribe to AskBobRankin Updates: Free Newsletter

Privacy Policy