Schneier on Security: Recording the Police

That's usually the caveat I put when I make that statement, but I forgot to that time (and again, most of my govt work is in public and I would fall under that).

There are times when privacy is essential for govt workers but those times rarely during public interaction, and when they are, it's usually because the tasks are sensitive (an interview with a rape victim for example).

The reason people complain about speeding tickets is that speed limits are inconsistently enforced. Speed limits are usually about 10 mph too low for normal conditions, and enforcement reflects that. Yet in some places, enforcement is strict, and it's impossible to predict where without local knowledge. For instance, on a major road near my apartment that goes out to some major suburbs, there is a little stretch going through a separate municipality where the speed limit drops inexplicably and is very strictly enforced, practically 24/7. All the locals know it, but woe to the out-of-towner who fails to heed the locals' example and hit the brakes.

But at least that's consistent. Where I grew up, inconsistency was the key. You never saw them set up twice in the same place, unless the speed limit was especially unreasonable at that place. Enforcement was so random that everybody ignored it, and everybody had paranoid theories. (It's the end of the month; they're just filling their quotas. My ex-wife's brother is a cop, I bet he asked his buddy to go after me. Goddamn white cops don't like seeing a Mexican with a pretty white girl. Goddamn Mexican cops don't like seeing a white guy with a pretty Mexican girl.) There was no pragmatic benefit to ticketing people for driving safe, normal speeds, so naturally everybody came up with unflattering theories and nobody changed their driving behavior.

So yeah, traffic citations can be bullshit even if the driver is guilty.

I talked to a few of my neighbors and this was the first time they had seen fines given. I along with others parked the wrong direction for at least 13 months without a fine. So, either police never patrolled our neighborhood during that time or they decided to apply the law only when they feel like it, i.e. to meet their quota. Revenue generation at its finest!

They keep the speed limit like that and set up traps all the time. Laws != morals, and when the police are treated as a revenue center, it's bad.

A lot of it has to with "equal enforcement" - take a look at mj enforcement in CA as described in http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/01/california-naacp-backs-mar... (leave aside for a moment the wisdom/necessity of the drug war) - I'm sure most of the people arrested for mj broke the law and deserved the consequences. but it as a negative effect on the targeted segment and not the population aa a whole. That puts one segment at a disadvantage in other aspects of life (getting a job, getting housing, etc).

BTW, don't know why you got downvoted, you simply asked a question.

"In New South Wales, revenue protection on its rail network is primarily the responsibility of Transit Officers. Like their Victorian counterparts, these transit officers also carry out security patrols on trains and railway stations, with the power of issuing on-the-spot fines for minor offences, and even to use "reasonable force" to make arrests."

Which I read as saying that ticket officers in both NSW and Victoria (where this story takes place) are allowed to use reasonable force.

(In America, of course, things are different. For instance the BART has its own police force, which 999,999 times out of every million can be guaranteed not to shoot you in the back while you're lying on the ground.)

But actually in most common-law jurisdictions, citizens do have arrest powers, which is why we have the term "Citizen's arrest":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

Which (if you look up the bit about Victoria) would probably apply in this case even if the ticket inspector were not specifically empowered to make arrests.