Ask Lemmy

I used to wonder the same about the cameras built into cars.

A lady blew a stop sign and almost ran into me today, with kids in the back who weren’t secured. Imagine if the camera on my car recorded that and uploaded it to the local law enforcement. Wouldn’t be me doing it. I hit my brakes and tooted my horn. No harm no foul. But imagine if social services took her kids because she didn’t buckle them in and was playing chicken with other cars.

People really need to tighten up with all these cameras about. It’s surprising they’re only just now being weaponised against the public.

Great, and the company should keep all the money.

I wouldn't particularly care.

Mind, the only time I ever got a ticket from an automated system, it was in error because it misread my license plate. But, I mean, sure, as long as it works at a reasonable rate.

My concern with Flock isn't "I might get ticketed for actually breaking the law", but "that much data, tracking everywhere people go, is way, way too prone to abuse by people who get access to it and would like to misuse it". That is, it's the harvesting of data that I have an issue with.

How would you feel if somebody followed you around, breathing down your neck, and backhand slapped you every time you did something they disagree with?

I'd continue hating everything about flock and the loss of my constitutionally guaranteed rights

They all need to be cut down

Absolutely all of it is against the fourth amendment.

How would you feel if flock cameras started picking up litter, rescuing kittens, and campaigning for the Republican party in their spare time?

Considering the well documented flaws in their accuracy, on top of the massive privacy overreach, it's gonna be a fat NO from me.

Speed Traps and those little cameras they set up on the highway that flash you for your license plate over speeds, that's more than enough.

In the US, all tickets from cameras are an unconstitutional violation of the sixth amendment's confrontation clause.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

Nice loaded question.

I would be scared because that shit is unreliable.

The issue is how accurate they can be. Even human police make the mistake of thinking they saw someone on a phone or not wearing a seatbelt, and I do not trust AI to do better. Speeding or reckless driving is a bit more obvious, and a crackdown on that would be helpful, as it's not the law that reduces it, but the enforcement, and how often do we drivers see something on the road happen and think "sure wish a cop was around to see that". For things like taillights or brake lights out, accuracy is the thing again, but rather than a ticket, a notice would be helpful. Just like a cop would do and give you a chance to fix it now that you know.

Not that I'm a fan of large scale surveillance. I think it can and is abused past the base purpose. But if it could be used only for the simplest enforcement of safety, that would be acceptable.

Somehow that might be like the one good use case for the little shits. Think about it. No in person contact means less police brutality throughout the year

But, that's ignoring all the issues they create

It's not an unheard thing getting traffic tickets from stationary cameras. Some countries even allow buses to forward information to the police if cars are unlawfully using the BUS lane, with the use of images captured by onboard cameras.

As long as clear, unmistakeable pictures can be provided to atest for the infraction and due process is followed, with a police officer signing for the process to have proof of due dilligence, it may facilitate catching people doing dumb things.

Otherwise, it will be a shit storm.

Yes: speeding and inattentive driving, especially use of phone.

No: seatbelts and broken taillights.