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.
273 Comments
EnsignWashout@startrek.website · 227 pts · 39d
Let's be sure to name and shame, for anyone who missed it: Georgia and Florida.
Company is - you guessed it -
Flock.(Mention of Flock in the article has been removed with a correction.)pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 68 pts · 39d
Flock is shit, but apparently not the one who did this. Ig they could be lying?
MangoCats@feddit.it · 18 pts · 39d
When I first heard of the amputee story (a bodycam video/audio of the initial encounter) it sounded to me like this was good old-fashioned police work, followed up with a typical harassment citation to send the citizen they didn't like's attitude to court if they wanted a chance to prove that they weren't holding a phone in their amputated hand.
peopleproblems@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 39d
I think people are rightfully referring to mass surveillance system cameras as Flock cameras.
Even if the company folds, the cameras will still be operated. It doesnt matter what the brand is that makes em.
It matters people know what they are.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de · 8 pts · 38d
Queensland, Australia.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 38d
Two states?
EnsignWashout@startrek.website · 1 pts · 38d
Washington is mentioned, but not with enough context to determine that Washington uses the cameras.
Which is weird, and other comments mention the whole article may be AI slop, rehashed from somewhere else. :(
Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 39d
Soulphite@reddthat.com · 135 pts · 39d
Unconstitutional. Get that stupid ass shit dismissed in court.
just2look@lemmy.zip · 99 pts · 39d
Get it dismissed, and then sue the department that sent the fine.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 44 pts · 39d
Good luck with that.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 22 pts · 39d
Plenty of lawyers that work on contingencies if they think you have a worthy case.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 23 pts · 39d
Might have more luck suing the company running the camera software which flagged it.
just2look@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 39d
Fuck it, sue them too.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 39d
YOU get a lawsuit! And YOU get a lawsuit!
EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS STUPIDITY GETS A LAWSUIT!!!
Too bad they'll all be thrown out of court after the company pays off the judge.....Ya know, it used to be when I'd say things like that, which I knew were always true, that people would say I'm crazy. That businesses can't just BUY their way out of a lawsuit.
And now, the corruption is just out there. Everyone can see it now. Which kind of validates me, but also it means that things have gotten so much worse though out there. Now they feel no fear in basically telling the public "We run this shit, not you."
Now for the next thing people will think I'm crazy for. Once they have it well established that they have bought and own the government, they'll begin taking things away. I'm not talking about healthcare, or important things. That's already started. They're in the process right now of gutting programs like SNAP, and Medicaid. They began that about a year ago.
What I'm talking about is, right now you have no reason to believe that you can't go down to your local ice cream parlor and get an ice cream cone. Nothing wrong with that. No reason to believe you'll be denied. Give it time. There will come a day where you go to get ice cream, and they'll tell you no. You're not part of the in group. You're not allowed to have ice cream.
And I'm not saying this about just ice cream. That's just one example of something that is an affordable luxury, that has zero importance in life but it makes you feel good. It brings you joy.
Those are the types of things you'll start being denied as they take more and more for themselves. They'll want movie theaters to no longer allow the common man. They'll want public pools closed, and renovated into private pools with private entry. They'll want everything for them, and for you to beg to get common luxuries.
For them, it's not about having vs not having. It's about power. The ability to lick an ice cream cone, as they watch you go without, and laugh. They want the status of being able to tell you what to do. They want the world for themselves. That's where this whole epstein's island comes from. Some of them might actually be attracted to young kids, but really the thrill for them is to be able to take your sons and daughters dignity. They want what society says they can't have, and is wrong for anyone to have. They want that. They want the taboo. They want the power to say they can have it anytime they want. Regardless of how wrong it is. To them it's a show of power, and that's all they've ever cared about.
Call me crazy, but in 20 years, when there's an entire generation who's never tasted ice cream in their lives, maybe you'll remember this post. Probably not, but I will. Just like if I knew where my 1st grade teacher, Mrs Huey was, I'd go tell her the conversation we had 30+ years ago. The one in which she claimed that I'd grow up, and stop playing video games. I told her that on my death bed, I'd be playing video games no matter how old I got. I'm 42 now, and I'd ask her "At what point am I going to grow out of video games? When does the growing up happen? I'm older today, than you were the day you said that." And she, in turn, I assume would tell me it's not important, and that it was 30 years ago. Which is frustrating because 30 years ago she wouldn't believe me, and now, she won't care. Anything to avoid saying you were wrong I suppose. Which is weird to me. I have no issue when I'm wrong. Happens quite a bit. When I was 8, I thought I'd grow up to be one of the ninja turtles. Which, just conceptually makes no sense. The turtles became the turtles because they were already regular turtles, and then mutated when they got covered in toxic waste. If anything, I'd just be a really big mutated human. Think about it. The turtles were little regular pet store turtles. Maybe 7 inches tall if held upright. Then they get splashed with ooze, and they're like 7 feet tall. So as a kid, I was probably 4 feet tall......so I'd be like 30 feet tall I guess? I mean, that would still be cool, but also, we're ignoring the medical problems of being mutated. I'd probably get cancer again.
What was I talking about again?
HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 39d
I read this entire comment and I don't regret it.
taxon@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 39d
I have no idea, but username checks out
Philote@lemmy.ml · 28 pts · 39d
Yes, but the process is also a punishment.
hogmomma@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 39d
What's unconstitutional about it? Genuinely asking.
PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social · 37 pts · 39d
The Constitution guarantees the right to confront your accuser in court, which you can't do with an automated camera. It used to be a guaranteed win if you showed up at all because the camera itself couldn't hire a lawyer and present an argument.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 39d
It doesn't have to. They send a representative from the camera company whose job it is to show up in court and rationalize their bullshit at the judge. I know this because I actually had to go through this process once, many years ago, to fight a clearly fraudulent ticket from one of these damn fool things in our local downtown.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 2 pts · 39d
Do you happen to live in the area the company is headquartered? Because I can't imagine them flying a representative out for every ticket being contested.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
These guys know how it works. They don't "fly" anyone anywhere. They have low paid lackeys available in any and all of the areas they operate whose job it is specifically to hang around in courthouses and defend their tickets. It's not like they drop everything and bundle an executive on a plane to go to Podunk, Missouri or whatever to argue about a one-off ticket.
In my case this outfit only operates in our state, to my knowledge. They wouldn't have to go far.
Zagorath@quokk.au · 8 pts · 39d
That's an insane interpretation of the law. I don't know or even care what prior jurisprudence says on the matter, it's fucking dumb if it's been interpreted that way.
If the camera took the photo and automatically issued the fine, then sure, I agree. But the camera should be taking the photo and passing it to a human to decide if a fine is warranted or not. And in that case, the human (or more to the point, the organisation the human works for) is the accuser. And the fine should stand, unless a defence explaining how the photo misrepresented the situation can be successfully mounted (similar to how a defence could be mounted explaining that the speed camera was incorrectly calibrated).
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 39d
Not sure why you're being downvoted.
It's the sixth amendent.
For of such a short document it is ridiculous for any American not to know their rights. Unfortunately the internet has been taken over by the ignorant.
TheRedSpade@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 39d
I mean, we should certainly take the time to learn our rights, but I wouldn't say that it's ridiculous to not remember everything contained in 40+ pages.
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social · 3 pts · 39d
This seems trivially defeatable by having an officer use the camera footage as evidence when they issue a fine. Then there's an accuser to be confronted in court - the officer
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 39d
When traffic cameras are found to be unconstitutional it’s generally under the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures, requires probable cause for a search warrant). I don’t know if that’s how this case would shake out, but a ticket issued by a robot for having a phone in your lap face down is dumb as hell even if it’s not unconstitutional.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 39d
4th Amendment violation
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social · 1 pts · 39d
That surely fails the Katz test
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 82 pts · 39d
I remember the NSA massive surveillance machine during the George W. Bush administration and Obama administration that tracked phone metadata and internet traffic that left or entered the US (which was used to justify a lot of surveillance of US citizens). Even after the Snowden disclosures of 2013 we were promised that the system was only meant to track foreign terrorists.
Then we learned that DEA had full access to it, and that NSA was sending hints to law enforcement about large amounts of cash in transit so it could be intercepted for purposes of asset forfeiture, what is nothing short of robbery of civilians by law enforcement officers.
This is an example of mission creep, in this case how it affects the surveillance state. Once we allow a method or technology to be used for major crime (like terrorism), it will eventually be used even for minor crime (like drug possession or distracted driving).
It's very common for courts to forgive a violation of fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search when the violation presents evidence for a major crime, but then that case will be used as precedent when the same violation occurs and discovers a minor infraction.
This is how, during the aughts and 2010s, the Fourth Amendment was gutted by a long run of carve-outs. Now, a police officer or state agent can violate your privacy without a warrant via a whole range of exceptions:
~ If the crime they discover is significant (SCOTUS suggested controlled substance possession as an example)
~ Using specialized technology, say long-range multi-spectrum cameras, or using a drone.
~ If probable cause can be established. A favorite is a detection dog that signals on anything and has a 90%+ false positive rate.¹ (This is a particular beef of mine, since fake detection dogs are now more common than actual detection dogs, and dogs are losing their presumption of regularity as a result.)
~ If the police officer was acting in good faith, which is obtusely defined and is very hard to disprove.
~ If the suspect is non-white or otherwise suspicious due prejudice. Really, in a lot of counties, law enforcement are allowed to operate on hunches, or have a suspicious activity parameter list that is so encompassing (and often contradictory) that it's impossible to not be suspicious.
If you want to know how we got here these were already problems during the Obama administration when we had allegedly reasonable people in elected offices. And while they discussed the risk of too much power falling into the wrong hands, they felt compelled to keep it.
Whether the One Ring, or the Ring of Gyges, power without consequence is too seductive.
¹ A similar issue is the $2 roadside drug test which reacts to a lot of substances that aren't controlled, such as glazed sugar off a donut. These were originally supposed to be then verified later in a lab, but instead were used to establish probable cause, and eventually were used as evidence in court.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 38d
This is wildly whack:
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
The system must do everything in its power to drive false convictions down to absolute zero.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 38d
Blackstone would agree with you.
Many, many people, in law enforcement and the judiciary would disagree...
...especially when it comes to minorities.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de · 80 pts · 38d
Since the article appears to be mostly a weird collection of badly referenced random cases, let me give you the primary source on the case in the headline:
https://www.tiktok.com/@kristakampz/video/7640403411845877012
Edit and also to save you having to go to tiktok, here's a frame extracted from the video:
Note, this was in Alexandra Headland in Queensland in Australia. So no idea why the article cites Georgia law....
Also this is relevant: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/mobile-phones
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 38d
Because there was another case in Georgia in December that they were citing as well. In fact they cite several cases in different parts of the country. The article is making a case for a supreme court challenge to these Constitution violating cameras and fines. The Australian cases just a viral opener for the topic.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 38d
Can't be that viral if the tiktok is already two months old. I think they are just too bad at journalism to check their sources.
pirat@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 38d
Does a phone in the pocket count as resting on any part of the body?
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 38d
Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap? That doesn't make sense. That's bizarre.
Edit:
Really? This is a hot take? WTF!
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 38d
If you write enough laws in a manner that makes it easy to violate them accidentally, then anyone can be prosecuted at any time and civil liberties can be removed via technicalities.
tristynalxander@mander.xyz · 8 pts · 38d
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 38d
Likely to make the law in any way practical to enforce. Many people will use their phone in the car by keeping it between their legs like a middle schooler hiding their phone use from their teacher. They can read messages or watch videos while keeping it out of their hands, but it's still just as distracting.
You could just ban looking at a phone in your lap while driving, but then you have the nightmare of proving that someone who glanced down was actually looking at their phone, rather than just randomly glancing down for some other innocent reason. And they would have to glance down at their phone at the exact moment a camera or police officer saw them.
Phone use is actually very hard to enforce because of the nature of its use. People using their phone while driving don't tend to continuously look at the phone the whole time they drive - they would be completely incapable of driving if they did so. Instead, they use it intermittently, such as while stopped at a traffic light or while cruising down the highway. That use is still enough to degrade their driving performance to the level of a drunk driver, but it's not continuous. To make enforcement practical, you need to write the law so that it doesn't require a lucky coincidence to enforce.
For an older comparable example, consider open container laws. You might reasonably ask, "wait, as long as I'm not drinking from it, why can't I have an open beer in the car? Maybe I just want to take my half-finished beer home from the bar and finish it at home!" And while that would be a perfectly innocuous reason to have an open container of alcohol in the car, it would also make drunk driving laws much more difficult to enforce. You could only ticket someone for drinking in the car if they happen to take a sip right when you're watching. Instead of trying to outlaw the infrequent action, you instead outlaw the necessary but continuous action. It's not practical to only ban drinking in vehicles. Instead you ban having an open container, as "possessing an open container" is something a drunk driver will be doing for a protracted period of time.
It's not a perfect approach to writing laws; you do end up criminalizing some innocuous behavior. But trade offs have to be made. Yes, it's unfortunate that open container laws also make it so you can't bring your half-finished drink home from the bar. And yes, it's unfortunate that banning cell phone use while driving also requires banning just having a phone in your lap.
But if you've ever worked in a classroom, you'll know that this is the only way to actually ban cell phone use while driving. Teachers learn very quickly they can't just ban students from using their phones, they have to completely ban them from having them out at all. Relying on lucky coincidences to enforce laws is not a practical solution.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 38d
The only reason to have a phone in your lap while driving is if you intend to use said phone while driving.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 38d
Your phone fell off the dashboard phone stand, you caught it and set it in your lap.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 38d
Or you are currently using it and trying to be sneaky about it
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
That logic can be applied to anywhere in the car that the driver can reach. Is the Australian government suffering a collective stroke? Should we send help?
Frigidlollipop@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 38d
I honestly throw mine wherever without thinking about it. Def has been on lap or in crotch a few times.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 38d
A law that specified you were actively using the phone would be hard to enforce. Simmiliar to how it is usually illegal to have open alcohol within reach of the driver. The officer doesn't have to actually see you drinking it.
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 38d
How would it be hard to enforce? You can see it next their head.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 38d
Ever since video playback is possible. You no longer need to put your phone on your head to use it.
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 38d
These are cargo cult laws. They don't understand what the original laws were about. They just know "use phone in car bad" but they don't know why. Used to you had to hold the phone to your head and block half of your vision.
Auli@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 37d
Yes it does. Your phone is in your lap so you can look at it. Keep it away. I know everyone is addicted to them but just drive without looking st it.
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
I don't own a car. I ride a bicycle and take Ubers and Lyfts for long distance travel, and smart phones are like the spice mélange to those drivers. They seem to need them to navigate the Universe. So this law just seems terribly ill-conceived. The lap is just an oddly specific place to focus on. So you can set them on the dashboard, center console, or anywhere else, but the lap is the danger zone?
My main phone is a dumb phone. I hate smart phones and only got one specifically for Ubder and Lyfts, so I'm not addicted. So I'm standing outside looking in and it's a bizarre law. Sure, we don't want people playing Angry Birds while driving, but I don't think this is a well thought out solution that does anything at all except cause more chaos and suffering.
jsnfwlr@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 33d
I know in Western Australia, where I live, it is illegal to have the phone resting on any part of your body.
https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/road-safety-commission/mobile-phones-and-distractions
I wonder where the line is drawn between on your lap vs in your pocket. By that I mean, what if it is in a clear pouch on a lanyard around your neck, or in a running-armband. In both those cases it could still be used by need not have been touched while the car is driving.
WindyRebel@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
If you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor, then it could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a dangerous hazard waiting to happen.
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
I've been trying to wrap my mind around the logic of this law and this was one of the things I considered they must be worried about. It's not so much people using them, it's just they don't want them in the lap. Because Uber and Lyft drivers have to use them for work in the US. Here they have they often have a mount on the dash board to hold their phone and they're constantly taking calls and checking maps.
As you say though it's like a one in a million event freak accident if it flies off the lap and gets stuck under the pedal. It would be weird to pass a law for some off the wall scenario like that.
jsnfwlr@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 33d
AI ...
that's why it cites Georgia law.
BCsven@lemmy.ca · 69 pts · 39d
That's the law here. Phone has to be securely stowed. Driving with it on your lap gets you a distracted driving ticket. Even if you weren't planning on looking at it. A sudden traffic move means its falling on the floor and driver is going to try to reach for it.
Zagorath@quokk.au · 50 pts · 39d
Yup. I'm not surprised at Americans being opposed to it, but here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving. The fine itself is issued after a person verifies the photo. And I am fully supportive of it. Driving a motor vehicle is an insanely fucking dangerous task. If your full attention isn't on it, you deserve to receive a fine. Keep the phone stowed securely in a holder, or away in your pocket.
The freedom of me to be able to make my trip on foot or bike—or even in my own car—without being killed by you far outweighs any idea of freedom you might have to be able to have your phone on your lap.
Australians and Canadians have some pretty bad entitlement when it comes to driving. But neither of us are anywhere near as entitled as Americans. Discussions like the one in this thread make that very clear. !fuckcars@lemmy.world
BigPotato@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 38d
Americans don't love freedom, they love being special. If we apply the law evenly, we can't selectively apply it againsts Blacks, Minorities and Poors. The law is there to keep me comfortable and them in line. If we start applying the laws like I'm not special, it'll just be anarchy.
Why do you think SovCit nonsense got so big there? Gotta be special, I learned the secret Naval codes that unlock free travel.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
Yeah, we love our own freedom, not freedom for other people.
starik@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 37d
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 14 pts · 39d
They're also against all their movements being recorded, ID requirements for websites, etc. Crazy people, who would ever want to not be tracked every second of their waking lives?
Zagorath@quokk.au · 3 pts · 38d
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 · 18 pts · 38d
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 · -1 pts · 38d
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 · 3 pts · 38d
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.
Zagorath@quokk.au · 2 pts · 38d
The law. It's a legal requirement. I don't have an insane paranoia.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · -8 pts · 38d
They alreayd have all that information, you're just saying you want people to be able to drive while on the phone
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 38d
"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.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 37d
No i dont have any privacy when driving on a public road, idk how else it could be. You want privacy then stay in your home.
tristynalxander@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 38d
Zagorath@quokk.au · 5 pts · 38d
And road diets, and modal filters, and bike infrastructure that is wide, separated, given priority at intersections, and ubiquitous. All great ideas I fully support. But even given immense political will those will take decades to fully deliver.
Meanwhile in a country a 10th the population of America 100s of people die every year because of drivers on phones. For a measure to be effective as a preventative, people need to believe there's a high chance they will actually get caught. That's the most effective predictor. These should not be secretly installed, but accompanied with a public campaign making it clear that they are being installed and that being caught is very likely.
And people who are caught, more than just a fine, need to face a real chance of losing their licence. Not to be punitive, but because that is what they have demonstrated is necessary for genuine public safety because they are dangerous if they're allowed to drive.
tristynalxander@mander.xyz · -1 pts · 38d
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 37d
I know of at least 1 study on human behaviour, where an image of an eye was added to a bathroom and increased the number of people who washed their hands after using the facilities, that suggests people do in fact need the "threat" of feeling they're being watched to behave responsibly.
Ultimately, when you're in control of something with the potential destructiveness of a car, you do need to be monitored for everyone's safety. The only way to have a society without that level of monitoring is to have one without general access to cars.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 38d
I am not a fan of the all-seeing panopticon, personally. That said, I personally feel much more entitled to good public transit and walkable neighborhoods than to a car.
Zagorath@quokk.au · -3 pts · 38d
I have heard bad things about how Flock works in particular with respect to tracking people, abuse of police powers, etc. But it was not involved in the event in this article, and it is not the only way of doing mobile phone detection.
My state uses a company called Acusensus, which only captures images for long enough to run the AI over them and then deletes all those without even being seen by a human if no offence is detected, among other privacy safeguards. The humans who do review the ones that AI detects as an offence don't even get to see where or when the alleged offence took place.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 38d
The case in the headline was actually in Queensland, but gadgetreview.com seems to be a terrible site that doesn't give a shit what it's even reporting on.
Zagorath@quokk.au · 2 pts · 38d
Holy shit that's bad. The headline actually made me suspect that, because that's exactly the cost of the fine here in Qld and I knew it was at least very close. But I clicked the article and it seemed to say it was about somewhere in America. I actually read the article and came away less informed than I started.
BCsven@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 38d
Especially nowadays, there's no reason to have your phone out. Bluetooth connection to infotainment system. Blue tooth add on to old soundsystem. Retro fit systems, or a single one touch ear bud etc.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 38d
Idk apparently we really the need the freedom to drive recklessly fuck this dogshit country lmao
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 38d
I think this is common everywhere, but especially in the US there is the belief that there are "bad drivers" and "good. drivers" and so when speed cameras or anti-phone device catching someone that looks like them, it's obvious "collateral damage".
In my experience there are no good drivers, everyone gets distracted sometimes, and the myth of some uniquely "bad drivers" out there allows people to self justify their distracted driving because they aren't one of the out-group.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 38d
Exactly, everyone tailgates everyone handles their turns like shit, everyone speeds. The only good drivers are the ones sticking to the speed limit in the right lane everyone else drives like they want to die in a fiery crash. Oh but everyone slows down to rubber neck someone on the shoulder.
i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 38d
My uncle once wrapped his car around a telephone pole because an orange fell off the seat and he was trying to pick it up.
I feel like there’s a clever fruit/apple/iphone joke in there somewhere but I can’t find it and I give up.
BCsven@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 38d
A coworker hit a parked car that way. Turning a RH corner he hooked his arm through the steering wheel to get to the passenger side, then popped up to see himself rear ending a car
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 49 pts · 39d
obviously LLM-generated article from an odd outlet that publishes five articles every hour
the news is real because it just regurgitates 404media
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 14 pts · 39d
Couldn't find it on 404 (ironic) but it was on Yahoo news
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/flock-camera-captures-woman-driving-101504525.html
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 38d
yahoo news is not a news source but a site that republishes articles from other websites. you can tell from the top here that this is the exactly same article from Gadget Review
apparently the 404media part is just a part of the article where it cites previous incidents. so then we don’t even have a source for the meat of the article save a random X thread.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 38d
Ah yeah even the author is the same
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 39d
The summary OP posted is LLM slop as well
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 38d
that’s not a summary; that’s the first paragraphs of the article
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works · 44 pts · 38d
An example of what people in positions of authority think is perfectly acceptable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
A lawsuit wasn't enough, the administrators should be branded as sex offenders and the parents should have taken them out behind the school and beat the crap out of them.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 8 pts · 37d
If I don't have intent to commit a crime but I break the law, it's not an excuse that a cop or judge will buy. Holy fuck.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 37d
I seem to recall something about a story where, like, a kids mom didnt know the camera was remotely turned on and walked through the room naked, after having just gotten out of the shower, and there was some kind of CPS investigation about it?
or is my brain mixing up several different school district voyeur stories together?
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 37d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
The school took 66,000 pictures of students in their bedrooms. School administrators should be listed as sex offenders but that doesn't happen in the U.S. Case in point - our child rapist in chief.
alekwithak@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
Nope, that happened. If the institution spying on you in your home sees you naked, in your own home where you foolishly expect privacy, you're a criminal.
FearMeAndDecay@literature.cafe · 3 pts · 37d
Why did they even have the ability to do that in the first place? Holy fuck dude
Pacattack57@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 38d
Traffic cams violate our constitutional right to face our accuser in court.
BussyCat@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 38d
Wouldn’t you just need a police officer to go to court and say they are accusing you based on said evidence and then you still face the accuser
The huge invasions of privacy seem like a much bigger issue but I am also not a legal expert
tmyakal@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 37d
The police officer didn't witness the crime. They're making that Judgement based on evidence provided by a third party.
If my house were broken into, and I managed to capture video of the incident, I can't just hand that to the police and call it a day. The accused has a constitutionally protected right to face me in court, not just the video or the officer I gave the video to, so that their defense can interrogate it fully. What if there is additional context that undermines the narrative presented by this single piece of evidence? If I know the accused and had a reason to see them convicted (such as getting a kickback from any fine they pay), now my clear evidence becomes a little more suspect. Now there's a very clear motive for me to skew, misinterpret, or completely fabricate the video.
That's what OP is referring to. If a company is going to install cameras and claim their cameras caught me doing something I shouldn't have, I have a right to ask that company for more details regarding their claim. Ideally in a public court, with a representative of the company under oath.
aquovie@lemmy.cafe · 5 pts · 37d
Or more concisely: the government should never contract out law enforcement to private companies.
aquovie@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 37d
Have you ever fought a traffic ticket? You’re not on trial. You’re not pleading guilty/not-guilty. It’s an administrative/civil thing.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 37d
To be clear I live in Texas so maybe we do things differently wherever you live. We definitely go to court and plead for traffic violations.
aquovie@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 37d
MA. Tickets have "I'd like to pay" or "I'd like a hearing". No mention of guilt.
Hearings are civil, not criminal, and you represent yourself in front of a magistrate (baby judge). If you tried to represent yourself in a criminal case, the judge would give you a very hard time about that choice. Either way, you don't call witnesses, there's no cross examination, and no discovery.
I don't get where people are going full Law&Order, demanding to see their accuser.
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 37d
Every traffic ticket in the US I've seen requires you to check a box to plead before you pay it (assuming you aren't fighting it). When you pay it, you are either pleading guilty or no contest. If you go to your court date instead you get asked to enter a plea and it can be not guilty.
Granted, I haven't been ticketed in all 50 states... yet.
Edit: Apparently the click-bait headline is referencing a person from Australia, despite the rest of the article talking about US law... No idea how traffic tickets work there...
Folstar@lemmus.org · 2 pts · 37d
#lifegoals
PumaStoleMyBluff@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
Traffic violations are rarely criminal cases.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 38d
It doesn't violate constitutional rights as long as whatever the camera can detect/see would be the same as a police officer. If it has a license plate reader and face detection or whatever it's unconstitutional because an officer probably wouldn't have been able to issue a ticket if it were a person there instead of a camera. If it's something like an obviously missing seatbelt or phone use seen through the window at a reasonable angle it's constitutional.
I don't understand the "face an accuser in court" argument. It's a photo. You argue about the photo with the judge. The photo is your accuser.
Rekonok@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 38d
No
The company sending the letter is the acccuser.
They need to explain how they interpreted the photo
Pacattack57@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 37d
Did you ever have a misunderstanding with someone that simply explaining it to each other cleared it up? How can a camera explain what it saw. The police officer wasn’t there and isn’t a witness. Also these cameras are not owned by the police. It’s a third party company that has a lease with them. So someone with no authority to make traffic stops is taking pictures of you and sending the bad stuff to police for money. Doesn’t that sound like a conflict of interest?
aquovie@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 37d
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 39d
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
1984@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 39d
Just think how safe the world would be if everyone was monitored 24 hours per day, for their safety of course.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 38d
They sure should if they are using a killing machine.
You know what doesn't need monitoring like this? Bikes
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 38d
I think this is fair. It's reasonable to require a stowed phone, and we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving our cars. No essential liberty is being violated.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 38d
Spoken like a true fascist. Government mass surveillance and AI consolidation is tyranny.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 38d
Harsh
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 37d
You don't think an anarchist society would have any mechanism to stop people from driving dangerously?
jdr@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 38d
Funny, isn't liberty an inalienable right granted by The Creator?
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
Ben Franklin was an atheist
jdr@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 38d
Are you sure? He definitely said and wrote things to the contrary, including the Declaration of Independence.
I have no dog in this race, being neither American nor religious, but it seems like an important historical detail.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 38d
I assume they were thinking of Jefferson, but he would have been more of an agnostic (maybe). He just thought the virgin birth was bullshit, Jesus was some guy, and the point was to believe in caring for others basically. Apparently he just took all the miracles out and said, people should treat people better.
Which honestly sounds like a much less toxic version of beliefs. (But I'm sure that's been white washed or rose tinted or what not over the years)
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
jdr@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 38d
I think we can agree he was a critic of organized religion, and that it's pretty enlightened to not have the state impose religion on anyone.
That said I still think he (at least for a large chunk of his life) believed in the existence of a god, the god of Abraham/Christianity in particular.
zqps@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 38d
Not every religious person feels the need to forcibly convert others.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 23 pts · 39d
I don't know what town it is exactly (Kirkland or Kenmore, WA), and they had a speed limit posted as 30mph., but gave my friend a ticket for going over 28 in a 25 zone. They grayed out the speed limit in the photo they sent that was approved by a cop. My friend would've had to go and get a picture of the sign to prove what assholes they were. I remember the sign and know for a fact that it said 30. Not enough to fight it, but enough to stay the fuck away from that town.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 31 pts · 39d
Some towns literally just exist to extract money from nonlocals who don’t know to not go through there. There’s one near where I grew up that transitions from a 60 mph to a 30 mph zone at the bottom of a hill, so if you aren’t riding your brakes the whole way down you’re speeding. And of course the cops love to sit there and pop people with tickets for it.
SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 39d
Same sort of speed traps used to be along the only route to a casino I went to a few times. My first time driving to the casino, they were laying in wait. I got caught on the way back.
Pigs sure do love to jam people up. Bonus points if they ruin the life of a minority! There certainly are no such thing as quotas, right?
jqubed@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 39d
Emporia, Virginia is another notorious one, right on heavily traveled I-95 as well as US-58. Virginia has front license plates, so the cars that don’t have front plates definitely aren’t from Virginia and if there’s a group of cars all going the same speed it’s the easy way to pick out the non-local. Saw it happen when I was a passenger.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 39d
Ain't that shit considered "entrapment"?
Nollij@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 39d
Entrapment has a very specific definition, and this ain't it.
It might still be an illegal speed limit change, but that's going to depend on an awful lot of details. It's certainly bad design, but the locals probably like it for the money it brings in.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 39d
Entrapment is when a cop gets you to do something that breaks a law, and then catches you.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 39d
That happened to my dad too, he was going "one over the limit." It's infuriating because it's fraud and stealing.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 39d
I think that lazy shitty cops do a lot to malign common sense safety engineering that most people would otherwise be totally on board for.
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 12 pts · 39d
Old guy told me in addition to photos you should request all documentation regarding that specific sign and that stretch of road, such as the work order to have it installed. Public records laws vary lol
brbposting@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 38d
Wow, good to look into if ever defrauded like this!
NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 39d
if that's not worth fighting then nothing is. I've met High school kids that have fought tickets before. U.S. Traffic Courts are notoroious for being extraordinarily mundane
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 39d
They would have fought it if you could fight it like a normal ticket, but you couldn't. You could pay or write them a stern letter that would mean nothing. Seattle has those kinds of tickets too. This would have had to have been a trip to the AG or something. I don't know how they would have fought it without a lawyer.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 38d
Article:
Evotech@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 38d
This was in Australia though
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 38d
Find a flock employee and place its favorite pet around its house.
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
This has nothing to do with Flock, these cameras catch people who are breaking a law and don't store/index footage otherwise, Flock is purely survailance tech, even if you do nothing wrong the point of flock is to survail.
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 38d
How do they manage that, with the current surveillance regime? Is all the image processing on device? What's it sampling against? How does it send the tickets? One-way infrared flashes?
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
I could be wrong but pre-Flock and letting the tech-Bros actually build a survailance state, most traffic cameras were designed to only flash when they caught someone breaking the law and so only send data off the device when needed.
For speed/red light cameras it's trivial, for something like this it's pretty easy to process on device to detect a phone in your hand/lap, but probably does need someone to check for false positives.
It should be, this is simple to do on device (unless it's outsourced to Palantir & frens)
Obviously when it triggers it uploads data.
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 38d
... So. To the internet?
Image recognition is not computationally cheap. There are more and less expensive ways to do it, but the absolute floor of it turns your phone into a hot plate. So whatever's in there would need to be at least a phone chip.
So it is kept and stored.
Red light/speed cams, triggered on motion sensor boolean when light red or radar speed reading>x.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about, which is fine, but why are you speaking confidently and assuming such good will about proven constant brazen liars saying they're not doing the shit they literally always do?
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
Lmao.
You can literally detect phones with a raspberryPi the idea that you need to upload it to a server is ridiculous.
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 37d
You can 'detect phones' via anything with WiFi. Are you trolling? Do you not understand the difference between image processing and simpler more computer readable signals?
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. How are so many people so rabidly and confidently ignorant?
CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
One I got a $125 ticket for driving 27 near a school on a Saturday in Washington, so no system is perfect…
fubarx@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 39d
Hey, they could connect the car 'driver attention camera' thing, the OBD car speed stuff, and the in-car GPS to the municipality, the insurance company, and your credit card or bank account.
That way, the minute you look away, go a little over the speed limit, or check your phone message, they just gouge some cash out of your bank account. After three of these, your insurance rate goes up. After the tenth time, your health insurance and employer will be notified.
Fun times! 🎉
Edit: every damn step of this is now available via APIs or Agentic MCPs. There is zero technical barrier for this happening. Sleep tight y'all.
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 38d
People that get caught driving drunk get an alcohol lock on their car, let's at the very least install a speed check (hard limiter or the automatic fine thing) in repeat offenders' cars
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 38d
I can see that working. Only repeat offenders need to be surveilled, and only for the intended purpose. And only by the State institution tasked with monitoring it.
Now, how do they make that happen? Because the public institutions (police, DA, Motor vehicle, etc.) Don't develop software or hardware, they would contract with a tech company, or multiple tech companies. That means that having only the intended party monitor these would be impossible, due to the data and infrastructure being built and handled by private companies who's only purpose is revenue.
I guess this just doesn't work. Oh well, we tried.
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 38d
Public institutions also have in-house software roles, and if those are insufficient they can have a tender to make the software that belongs to the public institution afterward (to then be hosted government managed infra). This happens all the time.
So its not right to dismiss this immediately.
MML@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 38d
So glad that I choose to drive, I love having a depreciating asset that costs 25% of my income when it's running properly to drive nearly an hour to work every day (and almost get murdered several times).
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
I guess we'll have to make a disincentivization barrier instead.
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org · -5 pts · 38d
You describe it as a nightmare, but on the other hand: People are operating multi-ton vehicles at high speeds in urban areas and are causing thousands of casualities doing that every year. A person operating a car should focus on the road and driving. If he/she is speeding, checking the phone, eating, smoking or fighting with their co-driver or kids, that's not safe and needs to be stopped.
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 38d
Unhinged surveillance and loss of privacy are not the solution to this. They are not the solution to anything except monetizing all the users and controlling the population.
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
My issue with it is the complete lack of transparency in the spyware. It would be better if we were actually told about the spyware and the data it sends is accessible to us. But right now we have no idea what they're sending, how any of it affects our insurance rates, and have no way to dispute anything resulting from it.
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
Because it's largely a boogie man OP invented, the network layer isn't magic, if anything OP is suggesting was being done secretly (unlike say teenagers getting better insurance rates if they put a telemetry box in their car), it would be pretty easy to detect.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 38d
Would be funny if it was a more modern vehicle, with a massive ipad that's nearly bolted to your forehead and has displays on the back of every headrest.
trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf · 17 pts · 38d
Remember kids, blackout or reflective tint and anti alpr film for ya plates are your friends.
teolan@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 38d
Or... you don't need a plate on a bicycle.
trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 38d
Agreed, which I wish I could but this place is the antithesis of anything in proximity. Maybe e bike but it'd have to be stealth because they'll stop you on that shit too.
BrickEater@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 38d
Got any recs for anti alpr film?
Nikelui@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 38d
What about IR LED strips to flood the cameras with light?
rumba@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 38d
Many youtubers have tried, It's not reliable, doesn't work in the day and newer cameras even in night vision are getting hard to swap.
The tint/reflective stuff has a decent chance of getting you an inspection ticket, most states don't allow LP covers.
My best plan would be and LCD infused glass plate that you could blurr out with a button press like those electronic privacy windows. Thing is, even that's illegal.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 38d
Maybe don’t be a dick in traffic?
5too@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
Doesn't seem to matter. This lady got a massive ticket without any evidence of anybody being bothered by her
SunshineJogger@feddit.org · 15 pts · 38d
They should take away her drivers license. A fine is not enough for so blatantly endangering everyone....
This is what I would say if she had actually looked down and not paid attention to traffic.
But this? This is just abusive use of technology
orioler25@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 38d
I mean, it would also be insane to take someone's license away for actually using their phone at this point too. Newer cars have actual touchscreen tablet interfaces that requires the driver to look away from the road; sometimes even to see basic information like their current speed. Plus, there's all these dickbags on the road in pickups or other light trucks (with or without those iPad screens) that are purposefully designed primarily to exude masculinity, not be safe vehicles to drive.
At this point, I don't know how we argue that the phone thing is dangerous without the allowance of all that other shit contradicting that reasoning. Even worse, the existence of these infotainment systems in the cars themselves has probably resulted in charges laid against poorer people who drive older vehicles disproportionately while Keith is on his way to work at the landlord factory and watching Madagascar 3 on his speedometer.
Smoogs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
0x0@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 37d
For your safety.™
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 38d
Wouldn't they have to prove it was a phone and not some black address book or something
xthexder@l.sw0.com · 2 pts · 38d
Well, it looks to be plugged in and charging via a cable. Possibly connected to Android Auto / CarPlay. From the photo they could probably argue it's a battery bank or something like that.
I'm 50/50 on if they really don't have a place to rest their phone vs they were previously using the phone and just put it down between messages. This fine seems a little excessive, but it's consistent with the law there, so /shrug
BenLeMan@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 37d
CADmonkey@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 37d
Great. Let me make sure my phone sits somewhere that hides it from view overhead when im not using it.
Ive been leaving my phone home more and more when I go places. I can't wait until I get a citation for not having a phone.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 39d
Meanwhile in NYC they're only allowed to put traffic cameras in school zones, they're speed-based only, the fine is like $100, and drivers can rack up dozens of tickets without any consequence to the standing of their drivers license.
I dunno man, I feel like there's a happy medium in traffic enforcement automation between these two extremes? It's almost as if stuff like the Georgia example exists to provide ammunition to the opponents in NYC who successfully defanged traffic cameras up there. With a thin veneer over the top that this is about surveillance.
Flock cameras, AI surveillance, etc is bad. But the specific examples and criticisms being brought up, like this one, feel very disingenuous in the face of how many Americans die to distracted drivers every year. Like are we actually pushing back against AI state surveillance, or are we defending the "right" of motorists to be wildly dangerous to those around them?
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 39d
Should breathalyzers be mandated in every vehicle because of the number of deaths due to drunk drivers? Should there be mass pedestrian surveillance with facial recognition to prevent crime because there are lots of criminals that use sidewalks?
The problem with any kind of mass surveillance is the information gathered will always be misused because that's what those in positions of power always do. Police officers are already using camera information to monitor the whereabouts of their exes and girlfriends. Now the data's being used as a revenue source, not for public safety.
Another example - Schools remotely enabled cameras (and disabled the camera LED) on their student's PCs and actually spied on those students in their own bedrooms. Administrators saw absolutely nothing wrong with it and tried to punish those students if they didn't like what they saw.
In my opinion there isn't any possibility for a happy medium, it's eventually going to be all or nothing.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 39d
You think that automated radar-based speed enforcement of those that go 15MPH over the limit in school zones during school hours with no detrimental effects to license status is a slippery slope to a panoptic AI surveillance state?
Because personally I think that as a society we can and should agree upon reasonable tests for overreach and abuse of technological systems, and build automations that respect those tests.
We both agree that AI surveillance is bad. You just stumped against it for a whole comment, but I already said AI surveillance is bad. That was not my point, my point is that I find this article's approach to the problem of AI surveillance problematic in that it's leveraging the reaction that drivers have toward any automation whatsoever to make an emotional case against AI surveillance that I feel amplifies pushback against otherwise reasonable automations that catch egregiously dangerous use (eg The radar cameras in place in NYC) an muddiest and important distinction. I just don't like the way this article is pitched.
MasterBlaster@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 39d
Like I said on a similar thread - we already lost our feedom. They're just installing the shackles now.
Folstar@lemmus.org · 7 pts · 37d
Wow, it sure must take a lot of processing power to go through that much surveillance data.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 39d
Per the article this was not a Flock cam. FYI.
snowdriftissue@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
Holy based
auzy1@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 38d
Not allowed to keep her phone on her lap when driving. Let's be honest, she used it, and put it down quickly
Here in Australia a cop busted me using my phone once (not defendable, but I was at a red light).
I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with mobile phone detection either still despite getting pulled over
If you don't want to follow the traffic laws don't drive or change country (but don't complain if you get hit by a oncoming car)
ChanchoManco@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 38d
Yes she probably used it, that's when she can be ticketed, she shouldn't be fined on a presumption.
Edit: Reading the note the charge is using phone while driving, not carrying the phone in unsafe manner.
Also I despise people using their phone while driving, the point here is that they must charge people for a valid reason and with proof of the infraction.
auzy1@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 38d
Jesus. Who is actually up voting this?
The name of the charge in some countries is use of the phone when driving.. and that includes carrying it on your lap. It's possible despite the description it's just the description they use
There's a fucking photo of her with it on their lap. That's proof
This is just some wanker playing victim. And, I guarantee they play victim constantly. Can we not act like babies about this and try to protect the weasels?
It's 2026 and most people have Android Auto or car play at this time. It's not like there is any excuse.
It's fair for the one that turned out wrong, but in this case, seems it's correct.
Also, it's some shitty random website, so I guarantee the info is partially wrong too. There is already one correction that it wasn't flock
If it was the police who pulled these people over, they'd be arguing with them too
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 38d
The only problem I have is with the camera doing the police work. Like getting a speeding ticket for 26 in a 25 from a speed trap camera -- a cop may or may not pull you over in that instance, because a cop can look at the whole scenario/variables and decide if that extra one mile really was a danger to others.
Yeah, this moron was probably using the phone. And every asshole using their phone at a red light means fewer cars get through that red light because they're too busy looking at their phone to notice that the light has changed or the car in front of them has moved. But let's have a person making this decision to issue a ticket -- a phone at a red light at 3am is much different than a phone at a red light at 515pm.
auzy1@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 38d
Police have better shit to do than mobile phone enforcement
And, in what circumstance should they be speeding? That makes no sense. If there was a valid reason, you can contest the ticket anyway
There sure as fuck is no valid reason for them whatsoever to have their mobile on their lap
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 38d
Fuck that everyine should instantly have a ticket assesed for going one mph over the speed limit but we're all a bunch of fucking savages who like having vehicular homicide legalized
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 39d
Loser. Pay up! Put your phone away.
jali67@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 37d
It wasn’t even in her hands or at the very least distracting her and they still send a ticket? Lmao
FearMeAndDecay@literature.cafe · 5 pts · 37d
I misread this at first and thought her head was down looking at her phone and I was like, “yeah she deserves a ticket but that doesn’t make the surveillance state good” but you’re right: she wasn’t even looking at her phone! This is fucking dystopian
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -4 pts · 37d
The moments I had my phone, face down and on my lap or between my legs, were the moments I had used it on traffic while at a stop light and had to go before I was done.
I see this as a valid charge.
The amount is a little bit extreme but still valid.
I would be mad af but couldnt argue against it.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 37d
"Take cops out of the equation for traffic enforcement."
"NO, not like that!!!"
Hypnotoad_@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 37d
Correct... Not like that
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 37d
"Law enforcement should be conducted specifically in the way that I imagine, not in the way that people vote for."
- Someone speaking unironically, believe it or not.
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 37d
ACAB. This isn't the place to try to garner sympathy for your threats against society from the ruling class, traitor.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 37d
I'm just glad the Lemmy devs didn't set a maximum block limit so I don't have to pick and choose which bad-faith attackers like yourself I block.
Hypnotoad_@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 37d
Alternate viewpoint, it's not about doing it a specific person's "way" but more about not doing it the objectively stupid way.
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 37d
One person's opinion is another person's "objectively stupid."
I have yet to see a reasonable proposition on how to do traffic enforcement that seems to sit right with the vast majority of people.
My point in making the above joke(s) is that this is the alternative that many people cried out for. It feels like goal-post moving when every way to enforce the law is "but not this way, a different way."
My guess at the common denominator that cannot possibly be objectively confirmed is that people simply don't want to be met with consequences for breaking the law, and no matter how that's done it will be rejected.
In other words, every way to enforce traffic has downsides - every single one. This is the one that does not involve cops. As you see, this is the downside. It's laughably easy to "THIS IS BAD" at it while proposing no alternatives, and very amusing when an alternative (like this one) is eventually picked apart for being "objectively stupid" when its downsides inevitably crop up.
Hypnotoad_@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 37d
I dunno man you come off as pretty objectively stupid, but whatever
HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 36d
Nice cop-out!
If it makes you feel better I feel the same way about you, given you appear to be in love with ad hominem.
3/3 of your comments were intellectually lazy, 2/3 were ad hominem. Do you ever contribute anything meaningful or am I good to block you?
Edit:
Wait, why wait for your answer? Someone doing an ad hominem multiple times in a row is obviously not worth chatting with further. Seeya!
Hypnotoad_@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 36d
Lol what fraction of your comment do I not give a fuck about hahaha
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
i keep mine in the space between the console and the seat not quite resting on my leg just sitting there unused and charging. the case on it kinda keeps it from looking like a phone as well
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 39d
AlecSadler@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 39d
I have my windows illegally tinted (including windshield) all around so...hopefully this helps.
Also fuck flock.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 39d
jjlinux@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 38d
dandu3@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 39d
In some jurisdictions, yes
Naevermix@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 38d
A danger to herself and others. Well fined.
ziltoid101@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 38d
What country is this? Isn't this kinda... normal?? The fine seems excessive though (depending on currency)
Saryn@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 38d
From the way the image is described, there is no obvious reason to think the driver was distracted or otherwise impaired while driving. Moreover, the decision as to whether the driver was distracted by a phone wasn't made by a law enforcement official. We most definitely don't want to make this out to be "normal".
Did you even read the article? Even the title gives some of this away....
teuniac_@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
It depends a lot on what the law says I'd say. Just like having an open container of alcohol in your car is illegal in many places, it's not a bad thing per se if having a phone on one's lap is treated the same way as if it's being used.
Unlike what the article says, phone use in a car is not seen as a minor traffic violation in many places. In the US literally hundreds of people die each year due to phone use while driving specifically.
Saryn@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 38d
I'll tell you what I told the other guy because you clearly didn't read the article carefully, as is obvious from your comment.
Actually, I'll word it a bit differently: based on the description of the image, show me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ongoing "phone use", as you just claimed. Those are your words, its what you just claimed, so you should have absolutely no issue explaining to me. Right?
Well, that is unless you go back and reread the article and realize that you won't be able to. Not in a reasonable, legally sound manner anyway.
teuniac_@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
I've read the article already and I'm well aware. And like I said, it depends on what the law says on phone use. It's not as simple as 'oh she wasn't holding her phone so she wasn't using it'. It depends on case law, how phone use is defined and whether the law is using a kind of prophylactic rule.
You can get fined for texting and driving while you're standing still. It's not something that you'd be able to say makes sense based on an article like this, but looking at case law and how the law was written, it does make sense.
Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to have prophylactic rules in place for what constitutes phone use. There is generally no reason why a phone should be laying in one's lap while driving except to be used illegally whilst driving, so such a rule could help enforcement and save lives.
Smoogs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
bridgeburner@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 39d
It's prolly because of those dumb fckn NPC-like pos people that the EU got this stupid rule that all new cars must have a camera system that monitors your face all the time. Another BS reason that makes cars increasingly more expensive.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it · 1 pts · 39d
Those «dumb fckn NPC-like pos people» are minimum 10% of drivers, judging from the latest police road blocks in my region (which anyway was signaled 150 m before). We are talking about tens of millions of drivers in Europe.
kepix@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 38d
im glad she was fined, but i hope there is someone auditing the fines, and checks the pictures
5too@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 37d
Her phone was face down, she wasn't looking at it that we can see. All we know here is her hands were on the wheel, she was in her lane, and she wasn't looking at her phone right then. Anything else is speculation without evidence.
kepix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 37d
where did you see the pics?
5too@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
Kazumara posted a video frame: https://lemmy.world/post/49325290/24732388
kepix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
yeah, the back cover case usually dont have a status bar on the top.
5too@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 36d
Status bar? I see the opening in the back of the case for the for the camera, but no status bar.
WindyRebel@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 37d
Yes, but you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor. It could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a dangerous hazard waiting to happen.
5too@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 37d
Okay - so charge her with having an unsecured object in her vehicle.
The fine was for use of a phone while driving, when the phone was not in use. Not for having unsecured items in the vehicle. Not saying it's a good idea to drive that way - it's pretty clearly not - but that's not the actual issue here
ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 37d
That's nothing but speculative and hypothetical, and not a violation of any statute. That might happen with a lunchbox or a bag of groceries. Your phone might fall out of its window mount suction cup if you brake hard too. Your floor rug might scoot up over your accelerator pedal and cause an accident. If any of those happen, they might be the "reason" for an accident but the fact that the potential exists isn't a violation. You might wish that were so but it's not.
Auli@lemmy.ca · -5 pts · 37d
Sure then but why is her phone face down on her lap? Cause she was using it. Cops going to give you a ticket also if he sees that.
5too@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 37d
Nah, if a cop charges her for that, she'd be right to contest it. Maybe it had fallen, and she tucked it in her lap to let her get safely clear of traffic before stowing it properly. Doesn't matter if it's likely or not, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and it's not met here.
Let's not let the police assume lawbreaking without clear proof, and lets especially not let them automate that accusation process!
blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 37d
You understand that most women's clothing don't have pockets, right?
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 38d
I'm not sure the evidence that's available here is proof enough she was distracted driving.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · -9 pts · 38d
Pictures of crime are valid evidence. Get off your fucking phone when you are driving.
Don't care if you kill yourself with your dangerous driving but you are just as likely to kill someone who doesn't deserve it too.
Glad somewhere is actually giving out proper fines for it. Here its a token fine, although they do eventually remove your license if caught multiple times.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 1 pts · 38d
She wasnt on her phone. It was on her seat, under her leg, face down, with her hands both on the steering wheel, and the camera simply spotted the top of the phone at an angle no human being could have possibly seen, nor would be able to claim she was operating it.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 38d
The pictures others have posted here show the phone clearly on her lap.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 38d
I'm an enemy of the panoptic surveillance state of course, but at least in this instance the all-seeing eyes of big brother found a worthy target this time. She, and a whole lot more people, shouldn't be driving cars.
Edit: all of you who have downvoted me and castigated my words are fools and animals who do not understand or deserve the rights you enjoy. Better men than you gifted you with liberties in the vein hope that you would use them to become more enlightened than themselves, now you will allow the cabal of pedophiles to take everything from the rest of us, so that you might sleep more soundly in the knowledge that when you are slighted by a criminal, they will be found. Of course, such a criminal state would not bother to find your criminal, as its masters are all too busy using the Palantir to spy on your children as they shower.
ChanchoManco@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 38d
Did you read the title? She had the phone face down in her lap.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
Yes, and I'm saying that it's good that she was ticketed. I still don't like having cameras everywhere watching and tracking your every move and every word. This was an instance of a bad system producing a good outcome, just as brutal American police officers who rape and pillage sometimes arrest murderers as well.
You people, fools, sheeps and dogs, do not have the reading comprehension to it understand my sentiment, yet you falsely accuse me of failing to read.
__Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 38d
Why would it be in her lap while driving if she wasn't using it shortly before they picture was taken?
Saryn@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 38d
Yes, let's just make the worst possible assumptions about every person in every situation ever. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that?!
You might as well be saying "PLEASE SIR, TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY, I'M TOO STUPID TO EXERCISE THEM ANYWAY"
__Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -3 pts · 38d
What assumption are you making then? Why was her phone out of she wasn't using it? Your lap is not a storage location that makes any sense when driving. You don't have a right to drive a car, there are a lot of rules that must be followed. Do you want someone to run you over because they aren't paying attention?
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 38d
Here's my assumption: fuck you prove it. That should be the assumption of everyone accused of a crime. Especially accused by a bunch of cameras installed by the Epstein class to spy on us all day. I keep my phone on my lap so I can listen to podcasts and thats where I can hear it best.
So maybe stop simping for billionaire pedophiles and remember you are supposed to be someone living in a free society and protected by the rule of law instead of licking fascist boots.
__Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 38d
The fuck is wrong with you? You think I'm simping for billionaires because i don't think you should be able to drive while using your phone? And back to the original question, what good reason could she have to have her phone out? I can't think of one.
Saryn@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
You need to go back and read the article because you obviously don't understand what actually happened.
I mean, holy hell batman, people are actually losing their ability to read and comprehend what they just read and then go on weird tyrades while totally misrepresenting the substance of the article because they were too lazy to read more than every 50th word.
This is fucking scary guys. Get a fucking grip. It's not that long and the language used is not that complex. Adults should be able to read and comprehend this short basic article, for fucks sake.
We are SO doomed as a species.
Sharkticon@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 38d
First of all I just gave you a reason, so I'm going to agree with the other guy in that you're extremely bad at reading comprehension.
As for the rest? Yeah you were 100% simping for the Epstein class. Anyone who supports the police surveillance state is doing the work of pedophile billionaires. That's who you're in bed with. So either get the fuck out of that bed or keep licking I guess. Ain't going to help you though.
aquovie@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 37d
The (Australian) law actually says you can't have your phone out (face up/down doesn't matter). And I think the law is consistent with other common sense traffic safety:
Phone use has been shown to be equivalent (or in some cases, far worse) to driving over the BAC limit.
Saryn@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 38d
I think reading comprehension mihht be a prerequisite for being an "enemy of the panoptic surveillance state". You should look into that.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
Copying this from another reply, because it fits both:
I'm saying that it's good that she was ticketed. I still don't like having cameras everywhere watching and tracking your every move and every word. This was an instance of a bad system producing a good outcome, just as brutal American police officers who rape and pillage sometimes arrest murderers as well.
You people, fools, sheeps and dogs, do not have the reading comprehension to it understand my sentiment, yet you falsely accuse me of failing to read.
Saryn@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
Calm down, Pol Pot. Before dehumizing everyone else and declaring yourself the guardian of all truth, consider this: admitting you made a basic mistake instead of going on an infantile tyrade about how people don't deserve rights will go a long way for you personally. Do it for yourself, not for something or someone else.
Thank me later. Or don't. Just as long as you try. There is no shame in making a mistake. Even less so in admitting it and apologising (quite the opposite actually). But there is a lot of shame in knowingly doubling down. It's clear what happened. Just own up to it. With time, you will discover it's almost like a super power. Your anxiety levels are also bound to go down.
Now go have a cold one and try and contemplate on the message without spewing vitriol toward the messengers.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
I'll admit to a mistake when one is made, but because I was right I will only admit to that. In not some guardian of truth, I just have a good opinion, which you and everyone else didn't seem to understand or agree with, either because you're illiterate or like the surveillance state.
It is no more radical a thing to suggest today than it would be two or three hundred years ago, because it was a common sentiment among the early Liberal radicals.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin.
Yet I recognized that, in this specific instance, the evil and corrupt government run by apocalypticist genocidal pedophiles did manage to catch someone doing a bad thing, which was good in that particular instance.
I thank you for nothing but wasting my time.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 38d
Reminder that driving is not a right, it is a privilege. It is often first taught in driving schools.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
Did you not read what I wrote? Did no one? You quoted it, but you missed the part where I said she doesn't deserve to drive.
I'm not talking about the right to drive cars, I'm talking about the right to privacy, and the freedom of speech and assembly - there can be no freedom of expression in an open society of the government in power can see and hear and track and record every moment of your life and everyone else's. There is no room for dissent when your every step is followed by an invisible thug of the state.
ZombieMantis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 38d
I have come to the conclusion that nobody read my post before downvoting. Do you people think I'm pro car? Do you think I'm pro-surveillance? I said she shouldn't be driving, I said I hate the surveillance state, what's wrong with you people? Why are you arguing against those positions that I didon't not advocate for, which I attacked myself? It's genuinely distressing, I'm reading over and over my words and trying to figure out if I misspelled something, but no, I think not a single person read it, it's incredible.
dandu3@lemmy.world · -22 pts · 39d
Why would the phone be on your lap if you're not using it?
This is kinda justified.
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 39d
By the same logic if you're transporting unopened liquor in a grocery bag on the seat next to you it's "kinda justified" to be arrested for drinking while driving. After all why would it be in arm's reach if you weren't planning on drinking it?
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · -16 pts · 39d
Presumably the driver had previously used her phone, and the phone was in her lap. So the alcohol analogy would actually be re-sealed alcohol held by the driver or in a container around the driver's seat. Which is illegal in most of the USA.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz · 17 pts · 39d
She probably used it earlier, but not necessarily. She might not have a good place to set her phone in her car.
She might have used it earlier, at a time where it was legal. For instance, setting navigation or music before driving. Or (depending on local laws) while stopped at a light.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · -7 pts · 39d
Right, but if we're making alcohol an analogy for phones then she wouldn't be given such leeway by the law. Alcohol is just a bad analogy here.
frongt@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 39d
Because the alcohol law is "open container". There is no "phone in reach of driver" law. The analogous activity with alcohol would be active drinking.
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 39d
So if the phone was on the seat she should get a ticket, if was on the console 2" to the right she should get a ticket, if it was in her pocket she should get a ticket? If it's in a dash mount within reach she should get a ticket? If the phone's in a sealed box like an unopened liquor bottle then she shouldn't?
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · -6 pts · 39d
You see now why alcohol is not a great analogy.
I got a lot of down votes above for pointing out the discrepancy. I think people got ahead of their skis: I wasn't trying to say she deserves DUI-level charges, I'm demonstrating that the analogy isn't great.
potustheplant@feddit.nl · -4 pts · 39d
theherk@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 39d
Because you aren’t using it. It isn’t in your lap when you’re using it. How do you use your mobile?
blitzen@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 39d
Not even a little justified. What are you on about?
Phone is on her lap specifically because she’s not using it.
JamesTBagg@lemmy.world · -17 pts · 39d
I hate flock, I hate the surveillance state we've lived in for decades. But you don't just drive with a phone in your lap. She may not have been using it when the camera caught her but we all know she was definitely fucking using it. You're lying.
blitzen@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 39d
There’s a law against driving with your phone in your lap? That’s crazy.
winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 39d
Does holding the volume up button to switch songs count as using my phone?
Pappabosley@lemmy.world · -15 pts · 39d
Idiots downvoting you are the exact reason we end up with so many laws that seem ridiculous. You're exactly right, why would it be in her lap if she hadn't been using? Saying she's innocent because it wasn't actively in her hand, is like saying you're just carrying a bloody knife, but they didn't catch you stabbing the guy, so too bad.
In Australia, your phone must be stowed or in an approved cradle when driving, because, people would be using their phone and then drop it in their lap when caught and try to claim they were just carrying it there. Not that it got them out of the fine, it just saved time with idiots arguing.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 39d
Idk maybe she just left Dunkin and paid by scanning the app in the drive thru and now her cupholder is full and it's the safest place to put down the phone.
I don't know.
I do know what they say about assuming, though. And the state is assuming, and thus accusing, her of a dangerous activity on nothing but the thinnest of evidence.
An accusation that is based upon a presumption of guilt, which our system shouldn't be based upon.
And so now this person has to choose between taking time off work, and possibly lawyering up, to fight this and maybe just pay a few hundred in court fees...or just pay it.
This is Vexatious litigation and an abuse of the judicial system on the part of the state.
The other day my car told me to pull over and take a nap because I was driving out of dense tree cover into a really bright street and my eyes were squinty.
This is like putting a camera right there in the sun and issuing DUIs because you look high.
stankmut@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 39d
My phone is in my lap while driving all the time because I take it out of my back pocket to not squish it when sitting down and I don't have anywhere else to put it. Usually I remember to tuck it down beneath my legs, but sometimes I forget.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 39d
There's a bunch of trays that can hold your phone all over, newer ones even make some dedicated ones that would wirelessly charge your phone. Put it there, your lap is not a stable surface, and sure will distract you when the sudden movement causes it to slide off.