On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:19:45 +0000 (UTC), Saab C900 Viggenist wrote:
>peterwn writes:
>
>>On May 10, 11:33 pm, Saab C900 Viggenist
>>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes you can purchase copies of photo(s) by sending $11 to the SDRO (I did
>>> that recently for a camera fine notice I've received), but they will NOT
>>> show faces due to privacy laws - if any personal features are visible
>>> they're obscured before the pictures are printed and sent.
>>>
>
>>Golly! I have never heard of such PC crap in all my life! Surely the
>>owner of a car is entitled to see a picture of the person driving his
>>or her car especially when the driver has dropped the owner in it.
>
>>Perhaps privacy is merely an excuse, the authorities do not want
>>drivers identified as it causes them more hassle and work.
>
>Don't really know, but the rules about getting copies of the pictures are
>very explicit to say that any visible faces shown will be 'blocked'. I guess
>it just means someone digitally alters the image before printing it, but
>then that raises the question of the important features (like rego number,
>etc.) being changed or potentially changed.
>
>I have never been in a court hearing over a speed camera fine so I don't
>know if the pictures used as evidence have faces 'blocked'. Anyone know?
>
>I can think of one reason (which is a bit counter-productive) - if the car
>has been stolen, then because the vehicle owner wasn't driving it, the
>identity of the thief is *protected by privacy laws* in any images captured
>for an 'official' fine-issuing purpose by a speed camera, etc. Really stupid
>(hence the note it's counter-productive), but that's the way privacy
>legislation works (at least here in NSW). It might be national since there
>are national privacy Acts too.
Dredging through a hazy memory (so don't flame too hard if bits are wrong!)...
Wasn't there a case not so long ago of a High Court Judge who owned a car that was caught
speeding, and when asked who was driving he named someone who had (he said) since returned to
the USA.
She later turned out to have been dead several years.
I seem to recall that he (in some form) repeated the deception (but I may be wrong about that).
Eventually he was done for perjury.
The point is that there has to be a get out for you. Have you even sought professional legal
help on this?
--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!! |