| ▲ | khuston 2 days ago |
| I’m all for mass surveillance of roadways, but I want to see results. Every day I see and hear people breaking laws with their vehicles in ways that make life worse for others around them. |
|
| ▲ | mcmcmc 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yep. Automate the whole thing and be done with traffic cops abusing their power to meet quotas or harass minorities. It would likely make car insurance cheaper too since people would drive more safely, and the cost of investigations and arbitration drops down with readily available video evidence. |
| |
| ▲ | themafia 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Just make quotas illegal. Make enforcing them a felony for command staff. Lock up body worn camera videos so they can't be used for "performance review." That footage belongs to the public, for legal purposes, it shouldn't be a "tool" outside of that. More importantly, can I borrow you car? I have some, uh, stuff, to go do. | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They're already illegal in a lot of states, doesn't stop it from happening. Cops aren't great at following the law. |
| |
| ▲ | diordiderot 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You aren't allowed to automate law enforcement because of disparate impact | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Right, because human enforcement isn’t selective or biased at all | | |
| ▲ | Tangurena2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state. Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people that you'd have to find the most racist officer saying "they all look the same to me" to get that degree of defectivity. | | |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You can at least question an officer in court. This is true in theory but not so much in practice. The American legal system only works for people with enough time and/or money to pursue justice (or whatever else they want from the legal system). Like traffic tickets on a road trip - very few people can actually go back to fight them. Facial recognition is irrelevant if the liability is on whomever the vehicle is registered to. | |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state. That's besides the point, you don't need to question a picture with accompanying information (such as location, detected speed). > Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people You don't need facial recognition. Car with plate XYZ (trivial character recognition) ran a red light, $1000 fine with associated picture proof of the crime sent to the owner of the car as registered in their locality. Done. | | |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 2 days ago | parent [-] | | “Not sure who was driving” Most of those red light tickets you’d be surprised but city subreddit advice will be like “ignore it, don’t even look up the ticket number because that acknowledged you received the ticket.” They only mail it to you via regular mail. They have no clue if it actually got to you. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > “Not sure who was driving” Doesn't matter, fine the owner and let them deal with the driver. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Mass surveillance is by definition oppressive. I think you mean to say you're in favor of targeted surveillance, targeted at criminals, who are on roadways. This is the distinction that's getting lost. Give me a database of everywhere you have ever driven, and I will find multiple ways to make you look like a criminal. |
| |
| ▲ | BrenBarn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand. | | |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Right - we don't know. Even with mass-surveillance, you don't know if they're a criminal, because criminals can look innocent, and innocents can look criminal. That's why you need to do more than just look at the whole world and look for any pattern of criminality - you need targeted detection and analysis. An example is cops stopping and searching you. If they're looking for a murderer, and they stop people coming out of Home Depot, and find a shovel, lye and rope in your trunk - hey, looks like a murderer! But it also could just be any customer going to Home Depot to get gardening supplies. So they can only stop people if they have probable cause: a reason they specifically think this specific person is the murderer. (The other reason for probable cause, which is just as valid today as it was during the Framers' time, was to protect innocent civilians from unreasonable search and seizure by the Government, as well as protecting personal privacy. Mass surveillance violates all those principles.) | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The problem is how do you know who's a criminal beforehand. Everyone is a criminal. Directed [per|pro]secution is a thing. And not a new one either[0]: If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him.
[0] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/244783 |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Cider9986 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. You want this on our roads? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud8kFCmalgg&t=112s |
| |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Driving recklessly is not an "essential liberty". Safer roads equals less deaths and injuries on them, which is not "temporary safety", it's literally life or death. |
|
|
| ▲ | MegagramEnjoyer 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a dangerous attitude. We don't need mass surveillance for traffic control. It can be done by the police if they really wanted to do it. Truth is, they don't care enough about road safety. This is about surveillance of citizens for control. First step is just infrastructure setup - next step is using it to prosecute those who dare to challenge the rise of fascism. Be an advocate for your own rights to privacy. Don't simply accept it as normalcy. |
| |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Unless you want a police officer on every street corner at all times, no, it cannot be "done by the police". | | |
| ▲ | MegagramEnjoyer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | then it doesn't need to be done in any way. | | |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I prefer people to be held accountable for their actions while driving, actually. | | |
| ▲ | MegagramEnjoyer 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Letting the state control our privacy is a huge price to pay for traffic management. Especially if said state is currently detaining people left and right, and occasionally murdering them | | |
| ▲ | M3L0NM4N 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not concerned about "privacy" on public roads. If law enforcement illegally detaining and murdering people is a concern, I'd rather increase accountability for the law enforcement officers engaging in illegal activity, instead of removing their ability to police actual crime. | | |
| ▲ | MegagramEnjoyer 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just stop. You are trying way too hard to act smart while spouting a bunch of bs that doesn't line up with reality | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | intended 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Agreed. In the end the results and outcomes are what matter. I really wish we had a more robust information environment where we could discuss things with more nuance. |
