[LINK] Surveillance in extremis

[Adam Todd]

At 01:11 PM 29/08/2006, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>What the hell, the racket is deafening anyhow ...
>
>It's not unreasonable to react badly when someone is clearly using a 
>steam-hammer to crack a walnut, and doing so in a way which provides 
>nothing of value to the ratepayer at all.
>
>The RFID does not help anyone prove who may - or - may - not be doing the 
>wrong thing, because an object in a bin is *not* evidence against the 
>owner of the bin

Um, not true.  The custodian of the bin is guilty unless they can prove 
beyond reasonable doubt they did not put the item in the bin.

Doesn't matter what the charge is these days, you are guilty until you 
prove it otherwise.  And but the time you get to a court room with your 
local council, they a have sold your house, bankrupted you and charged you 
with harassing and menacing mail, email and phone calls.

They tell me you can't fight city hall.  I'll tell you in a few months if 
you can.  Especially if Baulkham Hills Council can actually stick to one 
version of their story.  So far I have three!  And I'm expecting it to 
change again.