Nor did the mayor make the point that the “middle class” guy’s car is busy wasting the time of people in buses, ambulances etc. But the idea that time is money is probably too much to expect the legislature to absorb.

It’s also too bad that the mayor’s point about cell phone location seems not to have registered on anyone, including people on this blog. I’m not sure why it’s worse for the City to collect license plate data when TMobile, Verizon, ATT etc know exactly where you are, in or out of your car. You trust big corporations with your exact location but freak about license plate camera data held by the same people that already have your tax return, DOB, social and everything else they need to completely invade your privacy anyway. Doesn’t make much sense. Incidentally, if Brodsky is so worried about motorist privacy he should crusade against the state selling license plate and registration info to unscrupulous on-line data miners.

I would expect the NYS Assemblymembers and Senators to demand that those kinds of details get resolved before they endorse. There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done on this in a very short period of time.

I understand that my privacy is not assured when I walk or drive the streets, but that does not mean that there shouldn’t be some protections and attempts to reduce the intrusions of government and businesses.

This is a massive increase in monitoring. Is it enough of a reason to reject congestion pricing? Not in my book, but I definitely understand the objections and want to see precisely how the city plans to deal with them.

I truly hope that one of the results of congestion pricing is that motorists expectation of privacy is absolutely obliterated. In their comfy and increasingly large living rooms on wheels, motorists are lulled into thinking that their cars are private space. This, in my opinion, results in all kinds of sociopathic behavior on NYC streets because. While the inteior of the car might be private space, the vehicle itself is moving through the public realm though, very often, with little to no regard for that fact.

Do you have an expectation of privacy when you are riding the subway or bus or even walking on the sidewalk? I don’t. I am aware that I am among other people, strangers, my fellow citizens. I’m aware that I’m in the public realm and I behave in a way that is socially acceptable in the public realm. I don’t scream "honk!!!!" at people walking three feet away from me. I don’t intimidate people or blow cigarette smoke in the faces of children in strollers. I don’t smash into other pedestrians at 25 mph.

So, I will be very happy when the day arrives that motorists no longer have the expectation of privacy. Bring on the cameras.

This might be inconvenient for organized crime though; I doubt they’re such enthusiastic pedestrians, cyclists, and train riders.

I can’t recall hearing any politicians objecting to the installation of these cameras and I have yet to hear any elected official explain how they are any different, in theory or in practice, from the cameras that would be needed to enforce congestion pricing.

Rather than pretend that Ray Kelly and friends will obey the law here, let’s take legislative steps to ensure that the system is always under the ultimate control of civilian operators, that there is a high standard for its use in police work, that there are independent watchdogs in place to make sure such standards are adhered to, and that misuse of the system by any official carries jail time.

The possibilities here for non-motorist tracking are endless, particularly with such a large budget and the amazing advances that have been made in image processing in recent years. You can safely bet that the same software, if not the same system will be applied in mass transit, office buildings, parks, and other contexts. It’s an authoritarian politician’s wet dream, and bound to happen. Let’s recognize this as a reality that comes with technological advances and instead focus on regulating the potential for abuse, not pretending it wont happen.

As a side note, EZ Pass has been used in divorce cases. I think we all want to see a higher standard invoked before our privacy can so easily violated.

So I would indeed be interested if Mr Brodsky could come up with a privacy-enhancing way to implement congestion pricing. (Maybe while he’s at it, he could come up with a way to reduce the privacy-invasion of the Metrocard.) But I have a feeling that his whining is just an excuse.

Every day, the video that was recorded, say, two weeks ago, gets destroyed, and in a way that privacy-minded citizens (such as, ostensibly, Brodsky) can observe. If such video is being used in a legal matter, it can be preserved until it’s no longer needed, and then destroyed. Or, hell, in a further concession to libertarians, it could be required that the video gets destroyed after a certain period even IF it’s being used in a legal matter.