The Illinois Red Light Corruption Saga Continues

[ChiMilNet]

Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all. 

[hotdogPi]

Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all. 

How would it be unconstitutional?

Massachusetts has a state law saying that all tickets must have a policeman (or policewoman) physically present, but I'm pretty sure this is a regular law, as there would be no reason for it to be part of the state constitution.

[ChiMilNet]

Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all. 

How would it be unconstitutional?

Massachusetts has a state law saying that all tickets must have a policeman (or policewoman) physically present, but I'm pretty sure this is a regular law, as there would be no reason for it to be part of the state constitution.

Well, without getting too political here, I just feel that if someone is going to write mine or any registered vehicle a ticket for speeding, then it should be written in person to the driver, the driver should be given the right to their defense on the spot, and also the officer writing the ticket should be required and able to provide proof, on the spot, of the violation. And, by the way, there are states that have declared things such as red light cameras to be unconstutional. Missouri is one, for instance.

[vdeane]

Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

[ChiMilNet]

Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

[SEWIGuy]

Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all. 

How would it be unconstitutional?

Massachusetts has a state law saying that all tickets must have a policeman (or policewoman) physically present, but I'm pretty sure this is a regular law, as there would be no reason for it to be part of the state constitution.

Well, without getting too political here, I just feel that if someone is going to write mine or any registered vehicle a ticket for speeding, then it should be written in person to the driver, the driver should be given the right to their defense on the spot, and also the officer writing the ticket should be required and able to provide proof, on the spot, of the violation. And, by the way, there are states that have declared things such as red light cameras to be unconstutional. Missouri is one, for instance.

Missouri's case was about not being able to prove who drove the car.  Hypothetically, if Missouri could also take a picture of a driver and compare to to a diver's license picture, their system would be legal. 

[jeffandnicole]

Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

[SEWIGuy]

Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

[ChiMilNet]

Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you’re driving on a public street.

Agreed, jeffandnicole and SEWIGuy, a public street/road/highway is just that, public. As far as actual surveillance/security cameras, yes, I totally get your point, but let's simply set up cameras as that then, and not pretend they are to improve traffic safety. To get back on the subject of highway talk, really the point to be made here is that these red light and speed cameras don't serve the traffic safety purpose that they are claimed to (which I think most of us agree on). That some random camera can tag any plate and issue a $100+ ticket at their discretion (and yes, I understand there is a supposed review process) just feels unethical to me. Yes, fine, I am good with setting up cameras for reasons as you noted, and I am all for ways that we can use tools to solve crimes and improve public safety. I'll even say that in the event of an accident on the road, these can be used to determine who was at fault and such. However, don't use these devices as some cheap revenue generator disguised as "traffic safety". I think we have seen the corrupt practices that have become associated with these cameras for revenue purposes, and as a citizen, yes, I think the use of them as a traffic fine generator tool should be entirely banned.

[kphoger]

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

For one thing, there wouldn't be two vehicles stopped along the side of the road for someone else to crash into–or later entering traffic from a standstill.

[vdeane]

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

[SEWIGuy]

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Which is not unconstitutional.

[jeffandnicole]

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Privacy comes in all forms.  Cameras may understand where you're on the road, but what if you're on the bus and not in a vehicle registered under your name? You're using your name as your handle on here, which offers a lot less anonymity than a vehicle that you may or may not be in. 

Most people's cell phones are locatable.  Rather than waiting for the cameras to find you, log your tag number into a database and figure out your path of travel, your cell phone pings will locate which roadway you are currently on, the speed you're traveling, what lane of McDonald's drive-thru you're in, and if you mobile ordered or paid via credit card, the size fry you are eating.

A camera may figure out if you're driving on the road.  Your cell phone would tell your doctor if you nixed the lettuce on your quarter-pounder.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Humans could log you as well.  It would take a lot longer and be a lot more manual of a process, but it could be done.

When a cop or investigator truly wants to follow you, they do a bit of column A and a bit of column B.  All of this is recorded manually or electronically.  They have their cameras and their pictures, but there's also a lot of old-fashion police work going on to know what door you're doing in and what you're carrying.

[vdeane]

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Which is not unconstitutional.

I imagine most people would consider being followed by a cop everywhere they go to be creepy and an intrusion in their privacy.  Additionally, following someone around with a cop takes a LOT of effort and wouldn't be done unless there was already reason to suspect someone.  If a camera system were deployed that make getting an equivalent level of data very easy, there's nothing to stop it from being done to everyone, all the time.

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that attaching a GPS tracker to a car counts as a search for 4th Amendment purposes, and therefore requires a warrant.  I fail to see how this is any different from a privacy perspective (IMO the fact that it requires physically trespassing on the car, while bad, shouldn't be the sole determining factor for 4th Amendment reasons, and I disagree with the justices for whom that was the key point in why they ruled that way).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Privacy comes in all forms.  Cameras may understand where you're on the road, but what if you're on the bus and not in a vehicle registered under your name? You're using your name as your handle on here, which offers a lot less anonymity than a vehicle that you may or may not be in. 

Most people's cell phones are locatable.  Rather than waiting for the cameras to find you, log your tag number into a database and figure out your path of travel, your cell phone pings will locate which roadway you are currently on, the speed you're traveling, what lane of McDonald's drive-thru you're in, and if you mobile ordered or paid via credit card, the size fry you are eating.

A camera may figure out if you're driving on the road.  Your cell phone would tell your doctor if you nixed the lettuce on your quarter-pounder.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Humans could log you as well.  It would take a lot longer and be a lot more manual of a process, but it could be done.

When a cop or investigator truly wants to follow you, they do a bit of column A and a bit of column B.  All of this is recorded manually or electronically.  They have their cameras and their pictures, but there's also a lot of old-fashion police work going on to know what door you're doing in and what you're carrying.

I do not like how much data cell phones record and very much wish we would pass laws restricting how it's used (and make looking at it require a warrant as per the 4th Amendment).  I would not see the existence of such data collection as an argument for fewer privacy protections, but an argument for more.  In any case, one can, of course, turn off locations services or their phone and/or not bring it with them, and last I checked, my doctor is not doing information sharing with either my phone provider or my credit cards.

The fact that manual location logging takes a lot longer is a very key difference.  Because it takes so much effort, it's only done if soemone is already suspected of a crime.  Because doing the same with cameras and software is easy, there's nothing stopping the government from storing the data forever and using AI to detect suspicious travel patterns and then sending police to search people identified by the AI.  In fact, given current trends towards more surveillance, I fully expect that such will happen eventually unless something happens to change the current trends, it's just a matter of when.  Imagine a world where you get pulled over or the police tear apart your home for reasons related to "national security" or the "war on drugs" because your last roadgeek route clinching trip was deemed "suspicious" by the AI.  Do you want to live in that world?  I don't.

[SEWIGuy]

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Which is not unconstitutional.

I imagine most people would consider being followed by a cop everywhere they go to be creepy and an intrusion in their privacy.  Additionally, following someone around with a cop takes a LOT of effort and wouldn't be done unless there was already reason to suspect someone.  If a camera system were deployed that make getting an equivalent level of data very easy, there's nothing to stop it from being done to everyone, all the time.

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that attaching a GPS tracker to a car counts as a search for 4th Amendment purposes, and therefore requires a warrant.  I fail to see how this is any different from a privacy perspective (IMO the fact that it requires physically trespassing on the car, while bad, shouldn't be the sole determining factor for 4th Amendment reasons, and I disagree with the justices for whom that was the key point in why they ruled that way).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

I think there is quite a difference between placing a tracking device on someone's car and tracking them with cameras.

[Revive 755]

Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

Probably real.  Have seen the camera flash in work zones.

One of the photo enforcement vans was on I-290 today in the work zone east of I-355.  Small white van with a two digit message board on the left side that displays speed (doesn't work well with multiple lanes).  There was an orange stripe with black lettering on the back that started with "work zone" but I was not able to make out the rest of the message.

[3467]

IDOT  may be in another scandal . The FBI  made a 7 am stop by at a state reps condo. They asked about an effort to get IDOT  to sell a parking lot that was to be part of the Chinatown feeder extension.She had resisted efforts . They asked her about Sandoval who was the center of the red light scandal.

[Brandon]

An update, as of today.

South suburban mayor charged in red-light camera bribery scheme

The mayor of south suburban Crestwood has been indicted on federal charges that he accepted bribes to promote red-light cameras in his village, the latest development in a wide-ranging political corruption probe.

According to federal prosecutors, Lou Presta was caught on a March 2018 recording accepting an envelope with $5,000 cash from a representative of the red-light camera firm SafeSpeed, and then lied to the FBI and IRS when asked about it that September.

State Board of Elections records showed that Presta's campaign committee made an unusual filing Friday morning. Citizens for Presta filed an amended report disclosing that in March 2018, a then-SafeSpeed representative provided him "election day workers and expenses"  collectively worth $5,000. The connection to Presta's criminal charges is unclear.

The red-light ticketing cameras in Crestwood are among the most lucrative in the region, a Tribune investigation found. The story was published the month before prosecutors said Presta was recorded accepting the envelope with $5,000 in it.

During Presta's tenure, Crestwood settled lingering legal actions over how previous penny-pinching officials repeatedly and secretly put toxic water into the village water system. But the village also inked a deal with clout-heavy red light vendor SafeSpeed for cameras, and the Tribune found the suburb quickly became the most prolific ticket-generator in the region.

The analysis found the suburb's SafeSpeed system brought in roughly $8,000-a-day from right-on-red violations at an intersection at Cicero Avenue at Cal Sag Road. Cameras there issued roughly 100 tickets a day, almost all rolling right turns on red. A long-running, class-action lawsuit has alleged the intersection didn't even qualify for cameras to be placed there under state law.

[captkirk_4]

While they are at it they need to do something about the locals in Pulaski County running one of the worst speed scams in the country on I-57. A few cones and the sign warning to slow down deliberately tilted to horizontal like the mirror Marion spins to whack Indy in Raiders of the Lost Ark so nobody can even see it. Need a law that only the state troopers can police I-57 in some of these crooked counties.

[Mr. Matté]

An update, as of today.

South suburban mayor charged in red-light camera bribery scheme

The mayor of south suburban Crestwood has been indicted on federal charges that he accepted bribes to promote red-light cameras in his village, the latest development in a wide-ranging political corruption probe.

According to federal prosecutors, Lou Presta was caught on a March 2018 recording accepting an envelope with $5,000 cash from a representative of the red-light camera firm SafeSpeed, and then lied to the FBI and IRS when asked about it that September.

I recognize that town name from past stories about their mayors' corruption. There must be something in the water there. Oh wait, there is.

And from the same city, some good ol' ironic racism.