A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.

Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.

Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.

  • Zagorath@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Sure, and I’ll agree with them on those points.

    But Americans tend to be the most likely to take things a step too far. Opposing speeding cameras, red light cameras, and phone use cameras is not the same as those things. These are all dangerous but normalised behaviours that should be cracked down on for genuine public safety.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m not American myself, but phone use cameras can’t work without being constantly on. Speeding cameras flash when speeding is detected, red light cameras too. Phone detection requires AI so it’s gonna be a constant video stream. Everyone’s going to be recorded 24/7 and it doesn’t matter if you’re driving, cycling or walking. Who says how long the data is being kept and where it’s going?

      I tend to think that having speeding cameras in crucial spots is necessary (in some places they straight up exist to collect funds though) and a busy or dangerous intersection absolutely merits a red light camera… But I don’t want phone detection cameras purely because of how invasive it is.

      • Zagorath@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Who says how long the data is being kept and where it’s going?

        The government says. They’re the ones operating the cameras. Absolutely, they should not be used for any other purpose than their stated one. No video saved, only still frames kept long enough for the AI to make a determination, and kept longer if that determination is that there was a phone detected, so the photo can be used as evidence.

        But in that situation, where the government is operating it in accordance with security and privacy best practice, the safety benefits far outweigh any theoretical downsides. This is not some theoretical. Over 1000 people die every year in Australia on our roads. Approximately 16% of serious car crashes are linked to mobile phone use.

        We need to stop treating driving like a sacred right, and start treating it like what it is: an incredibly dangerous activity in need of heavy regulation.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Uh why do you think that the private companies running the service are just going to do what they’re told? For that matter, what makes you think the government itself wants a privacy-first solution? It’s better to keep data indefinitely in case you need it in the future.

        • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 hours ago

          “They already have all that information” should not be the same as “I’m OK with them constantly surveilling me”. That kind of thinking is exactly why they can continue to double down on all the crazy surveillance and privacy invasion. You’re normalizing not having any privacy.