board camera review for Insurance

[Christophe]

Small error fixed, thank you Xav (who remembered his message, hat!)

[Obamot]

I understand what Xav says and I agreed to it at first reading (and still partially adheres to it in principle). However after reflection I must answer as follows.
It is indeed for the authorities to take measures so that there is no drift in the population. Exactly, the video is a palliative against the drift and laxity of governments.
It is therefore not an end in itself while waiting for better in the development of the civic sense.

I understand the protection reflex: to do justice yourself or the beginning of justice by raz-le-bol.

Those who have nothing to blame themselves for, have nothing to fear.
Doing justice yourself, would be on the basis of the evidence from the video, giving yourself rights to fight back which are illegal. It has nothing to do.

However, the drift is easy and a digital technological war between individuals is very tempting. Why not a camera in his garden to prove that the neighbor made his dog do his business on our property, why not a camera at the front door to prove that a person is abusing us? etc.

Without camera, take them ... with the neighbors, who doesn't know?
If someone comes to your house without your permission, it is a case of violation of private property, whether a neighbor or not. This is for the facts. Then whether it's a witness or a camera, the goal is to establish the facts (if that is a problem) .... But the procedures do not change, whether there are cameras or not, c 'is statistically proven.
Now in a society where there is such a laxity of civic sense, or the brats and the mediocre take themselves for gods, I am not shocked to employ means allowing me to protect myself against human stupidity. Time will tell whether it is good or not, meanwhile the legislator can always correct the situation, precisely because we are in a democracy, which sometimes has good.

Finally, if it works, why not have a camera with us to prove to our loved ones that they made a mistake, etc, etc ...

It's always the same, those who do not have an ethical or social sense, will not have more or less with or without a camera. It doesn't change anything or at least it doesn't make anything worse.

We end up reproducing what we have always fought against: dictatorship.

We must not confuse dictatorship with "the need for constraint" (see Masslow's pyramid). The camera pose is done by free will. This is all the difference from a dictatorship. Who would use the cameras as a means of coercion, which cannot take place since the private ones cannot film the public domain, as Remundo recalled. We can only do this under certain constraints.

In addition it is with unequal "weapons", since once again it is the people who have the most means or technical knowledge who will be "superior".

There are dash cams at 60 € already and they are very well done. There is therefore no elitism in there, whoever has a car and wants to preserve his property, can spend such a small amount given the benefits it provides.

On the other hand, as has been said above, recording an individual (sometimes even a group contrary to a widespread idea) on a medium (image or even sound), is strictly prohibited in France. It just might backfire. The right to the image is very regulated, even for images not showing a person, it is generally a question of private life ... and this is precisely what we are talking about here.

No, already answered above and also by Remundo.

We must think carefully before believing that our actions are "right". Justice and fairness are notions that require a lot of time and work on oneself, sometimes a lifetime.

A dash cam only allows to establish facts, except that these are found to be fair or not, it is a means to achieve a goal (not an end in itself to want to flick the world) I think that it is true to say that gaining correctness in behavior and thoughts is a long and useful and beneficial way, but I do not see how a camera (or anyone present and witness) could change anything at an approach which is a need for the development of individuals based on free will and personal will. Cameras don't have that power.

RTDC.

PS: but I understand the background and it is discussed ...

[dede2002]

Amha it is not forbidden to film anything, what is forbidden is to publish, if it interferes with private life (or the interests of the State ..).

But sometimes it can be useful to have proof. Something incredible just happened to me and it was a camera that "saved" me.
Let me tell you the facts: on my credit card count, I see a debit of 300 francs in a store that I frequent regularly, the same day as a purchase of 30 francs, a month ago. I went to the store to claim, because I knew I hadn't bought something so expensive. (it would have been 50 balls I wouldn't even have noticed)
We found in the account that it was the ticket that followed mine, the other had paid with his card and it was mine that was charged!
So they watched the video from the surveillance camera, recognized the other (fortunately for me it's a regulars store) who checked his count, he had not been debited.

The IT department at the box said "it's impossible", but based on the video and the cash register tickets, I was reimbursed with a nice bottle as a gift. But what about the explanation, they are still looking ...

And I called the visa card service:
-Oh it does not matter, it is a computer system error.
-Is that so? and it happens often?
-No it's the first time...

My conclusion is that when the Machine messes around, you can't count on humans to get out of it ...