[HN Gopher] Did your car witness a crime?
___________________________________________________________________
Did your car witness a crime?
Author : danso
Score : 132 points
Date : 2024-08-31 16:21 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sfchronicle.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sfchronicle.com)
| m0llusk wrote:
| It's happening. Cameras everywhere all the time. No more
| anonymity in public soon. Hopefully this will improve behavior
| generally, though at possibly great cost.
| righthand wrote:
| People will move out of the cities onto land where they can
| remove/shoot down cameras. The cities and policing are too
| aggressive with their big brother tactics, thinking FUD about
| crime is a good enough reason to take away privacy from people.
| It is actually a minority opinion that the country wants this
| but no one votes in local elections anymore so the minority
| wins.
| Loughla wrote:
| It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones.
|
| Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and
| car cameras and CCTV cameras.
| righthand wrote:
| It's different depending on the municipality. Your initial
| statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in
| the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any
| small police department can actually do about it.
| gruez wrote:
| >It's different depending on the municipality. Your
| initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch
| of land in the US.
|
| Please enlighten me where in the US you could legally
| shoot down someone else's drones.
|
| >Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small
| police department can actually do about it.
|
| If you're interested in protecting your privacy, why
| would it ever be a good idea to commit a bunch of
| felonies, by illegally discharging firearms to take down
| cameras? Even if you somehow didn't get caught, you're
| painting a big target on your back by committing all
| those crimes and putting everyone in the area on edge.
| Loughla wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it's the FAA that dictates that one. It's
| federally illegal.
|
| And how motivated are they? Well I'm assuming someone
| will complain that you shot down their drone. And most
| police are very interested in firearm crimes.
|
| The FAA is also very interested in people who shoot at
| aircraft of any kind.
| klyrs wrote:
| > People will move out of the cities onto land where they can
| remove/shoot down cameras
|
| People interested in method Mad Max LARPing are significantly
| overrepresented on HN.
| righthand wrote:
| Drones, country where owning a gun is right. I see no post
| apocalyptic societal leap needed to get to something like
| this happening.
|
| People interested in fiction as the only match for
| predictions, are significantly overrepresented on HN.
| Please reference at me that "life will find a way".
| klyrs wrote:
| Where you're certainly correct that "people" will move
| out to the country because of this, it's your insinuation
| that their number will be noteworthy that I find suspect.
|
| And, as it turns out, high prevalence of gun ownership
| and radically inappropriate use of guns is not unique to
| either the city nor the country.
| righthand wrote:
| Yes my prediction remains to be seen if there is a
| dramatic effect. People can still leave nyc, the city can
| still grow in population and get terrible for
| surveillance free life. And people can still leave to
| avoid that. It doesn't have to be a substantial event.
|
| It's like ad blockers, a lot of people don't use them
| doesn't mean there aren't a significant portion of the
| population that doesn't like ads.
|
| And who cares if my circumstances are unique to the US or
| not. The article is about the US. So in the realm of
| reaction to increased surveillance, I'm referring to the
| US. But if we want to be pendantic, Mad Max doesn't even
| occur in the US, so it's not even a relevant comparison I
| would be making if I were making that comparison.
| klyrs wrote:
| Mad Max explores the possible consequences of your "I can
| shoot anything my bullets feel like hitting" brand of
| libertarianism. You can't invalidate an analogy by taking
| it quite so literally.
|
| Is my analogy a stretch? Yes, if you keep your bullets
| within your property line. But fantasizing about moving
| to the country where you can shoot whatever thing you
| don't like at this moment is an entire trope that is
| broadly painted with the Mad Max brush
|
| But your property line is irrelevant. You can't shoot
| down a high elevation surveillance drone. Drones with
| moderate elevation, at the property line, can take very
| high resolution pictures from a wealth of vantage points.
| Keep the bullets within your property line, and you've
| lost.
| gruez wrote:
| >>>People will move out of the cities onto land where
| they can remove/shoot down cameras.
|
| >Drones, country where owning a gun is right.
|
| Shooting down someone else's drones/cameras however,
| isn't.
| righthand wrote:
| It was on my property. Spying isn't legal because you can
| fly a drone over my fence. My places have a right to
| defend yourself. How do I know it's not an attack?
| gruez wrote:
| I'm not sure how you got the impression that the
| discussion was about cameras/drones on your property. The
| OP talked about "Cameras everywhere all the time. No more
| anonymity in public soon". It's clear that we're talking
| about other people's cameras in public spaces, not
| voyeurs trying to look in your bedroom.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Do you own the airspace above your property?
| Eumenes wrote:
| Acktually, the FAA owns the air and sky buddy!
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Have you ever been in a heavy gun owning rural area? The
| first tell is just about every traffic sign on the major
| roads is swiss cheesed. People aren't concerned about the
| letter of the law.
| Eumenes wrote:
| "Hackers" who love censorship, surveillance, content
| moderation, etc, are also overrepresented here (tech in
| general, really)
| kibwen wrote:
| _> People will move out of the cities onto land where they
| can remove /shoot down cameras._
|
| No, this doesn't help in the slightest unless you're moving
| to an isolated compound with no contact with the outside
| world. As soon as you get in your car to drive to the grocery
| store, you'll be subject to all the same surveillance. And if
| you're going to try to organize in your community to tear
| down and outlaw all the cameras between your house and the
| grocery store, you'll have an easier time of organizing in
| denser areas (not necessarily cities, but at least small
| towns).
| righthand wrote:
| A lot of small towns never installed the surveillance
| beyond a few old ladies. There are plenty of small towns
| with tiny populations that would love for people to move in
| and have no intention of ruining their neighbors lives.
|
| Of course the idea isn't perfect but the visual imagery
| people imagine suggests otherwise. People are enjoying
| their youth dumping data to be resold not because they
| can't do anything about it but because there has been no
| consequences yet. That changes when your data is a direct
| pipe to law enforcement.
|
| The entire thing is a illogical reaction, surveillance and
| moving away.
| chacha102 wrote:
| This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the
| inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it _might_
| have inside of it. And the opposite, doing what Ring is doing and
| simply streaming it to the police directly, might be easier but I
| still believe a major privacy concern.
|
| Sure, it could be helpful. But at what cost?
| gruez wrote:
| >This makes me _not_ want to get a Tesla, just to avoid the
| inconvenience of getting my car towed because of what it
| _might_ have inside of it.
|
| From the article:
|
| >Therriault said he and other officers now frequently seek
| video from bystander Teslas, and usually get the owners'
| consent to download it without having to serve a warrant.
| Still, he said, tows are sometimes necessary, if police can't
| locate a Tesla owner and need the video "to pursue all leads."
|
| They're not towing cars at first opportunity.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| The fact that they're doing it _at all_ is completely
| unacceptable.
| umeshunni wrote:
| Sadly the politics of the Bay Area has led to a crime wave
| and most people feel differently.
| gruez wrote:
| Search warrants have existed forever, and allowed police to
| compel production of certain evidence. This includes
| breaking into residences or offices. I don't see how towing
| a car is any different. Unless you think search warrants
| themselves are "completely unacceptable", I don't see how
| towing teslas should be singled out.
| snozolli wrote:
| _I don 't see how towing a car is any different_
|
| Before modern FISA courts, we generally had faith that a
| search warrant was _warranted_ , based upon other
| investigation. From what the article said, this sounds
| more like a "fishing expedition".
| gruez wrote:
| They did investigate. A guy was stabbed nearby, and the
| car was suspected to be recording. On a more practical
| level, the car was recording a public area (ie. the road)
| anyways, so it's not like that much privacy was lost by
| granting access to the video.
| cabbageicefruit wrote:
| Towing cars at all without a very crucial reason should
| be illegal in general.
|
| Taking someone's transportation that they assume they
| have access to, without their knowledge, and without them
| being able to find out until the very second they need
| that transportation is dangerous. Emergencies happen.
|
| If you're taking someone's car you better have a damn
| good reason. And "you accidentally parked in the wrong
| parking spot doesn't clear that hurdle. That's what
| tickets are for. "Really wanting to see the recordings
| from your car camera" doesn't clear that hurdle either.
| mdorazio wrote:
| 1) Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. There is
| zero reason to protect cars any more than they already
| are.
|
| 2) If you have a Tesla, you get mobile notifications
| anytime someone even gets close to it. If the police are
| trying to contact the owner of one and are unable to do
| so, it's extremely likely that person isn't even in town.
| If it _does_ get towed, one tap on your app will tell you
| exactly where it is.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Imagine trying to go to work and you don't have your car.
| Are you going to say "well I guess driving is a privilege
| and not a right so its fine that the police repossess my
| vehicle at random times" or are you going to be livid
| like a normal person?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Why not respond to the points the poster made instead of
| making up alternative scenarios to mad about?
| monkeywork wrote:
| Regarding #2 is that not an OPTION that may or may not
| get turned on?
|
| Regarding #1 you are correct that DRIVING is a privilege
| however property ownership is a RIGHT and I'm assuming we
| aren't talking about a vehicle in motion when we are
| talking about the police unable to contact an owner.
| Aloisius wrote:
| > And "you accidentally parked in the wrong parking spot
| doesn't clear that hurdle. That's what tickets are for.
|
| Private lot owners can't issue legally-enforceable
| tickets. Their only real option is to tow.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Because you have to then recover the car which is hard to
| do when your car was effectively stolen
| monkeywork wrote:
| I think the difference is historically the average person
| wasn't doing a lot of surveillance where as an office
| place did.
|
| Many people do not want their cameras in the doors,
| property, cars, etc being used by the police for cases
| that do not directly impact them.... they do not want to
| be involved, same as many "witnesses" will simply say
| they didn't see or know anything and be uncooperative.
|
| As cameras start becoming more and more built into every
| day items many people suddenly can find themselves thrust
| into situations they want nothing to do with, so sure
| search warrants have existed forever but the chance of it
| impacting the average non-involved party were pretty
| slim, that chance is growing and people dislike it.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which
| you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and
| "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it". The
| proper analogue to a search warrant here is the police
| getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's servers,
| not towing the car away.
| gruez wrote:
| >There is a huge gap between a search warrant (in which
| you are generally the suspect of the investigation) and
| "this guy's car might have evidence, let's tow it".
|
| The cops had a warrant. Moreover, search warrants are
| granted if there's probable cause. Whether someone is a
| suspect is irrelevant.
|
| >The proper analogue to a search warrant here is the
| police getting a warrant to get the data off Tesla's
| servers, not towing the car away.
|
| Is it even on tesla's servers? According to the article
| it's stored on a USB drive in the car.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Very much this. Towing by the police should only be
| something done when the car is in violation of something. I
| did not see anything about the expense of retrieving the
| car. You took the person's car so there is definite expense
| of getting there. Did you force the person to miss a
| flight, a meeting, a date? WTF do these people think they
| are so above and beyond rational thought is ridiculous.
| gruez wrote:
| >Very much this. Towing by the police should only be
| something done when the car is in violation of something.
|
| If the police has a search warrant for your home and
| you're not there, they can break in, even if you're not
| "in violation of something". I don't see how this is any
| different.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when
| it is searched. Also, if you're searching my house, more
| than likely, I'm directly involved in something. They
| don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which
| is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these
| disparate concepts. You've now made an innocent civilian
| incur ridiculous fees to get their car out of impound
| when there was no reason to impound it to begin with.
|
| You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the
| owner to return. It's not like this was a long term
| parking spot. There are just so many options other than
| tow this innocent car.
| gruez wrote:
| >I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when
| it is searched
|
| They could however, break your door (if you're not there
| to let them in), and AFAIK they're not responsible for
| getting it fixed.
|
| >Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely,
| I'm directly involved in something.
|
| That's irrelevant. The standard for a search warrant is
| "probable cause" regardless.
|
| >They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage,
| which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating
| these disparate concepts.
|
| ...because the ring footage isn't in your house, it's in
| the cloud. Moreover, if you have an on-premise system and
| you're on vacation or something, it's plausible that they
| get a search warrant and break in, especially if they
| think time is of the essence (eg. your system has limited
| retention and the footage is going to be wiped).
|
| >You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the
| owner to return.
|
| If you read the article the police claims that it's only
| used if they can't locate the owner. It's unclear what
| that exactly means, but it's not like they're towing
| every tesla near the crime scene.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "If you read the article" is such a lame comment. In
| other comments in this thread, I've literally quoted the
| article. How in the world could I have pulled a quote
| without reading the article.
|
| It's clear you and I have polar opposite sentiments
| regarding this. So I'll leave it here as you are quite
| tiresome
| gruez wrote:
| >"If you read the article" is such a lame comment. In
| other comments in this thread, I've literally quoted the
| article. How in the world could I have pulled a quote
| without reading the article.
|
| Unlike some commenters I don't check a commenter's entire
| comment history before making comments. In fact, I don't
| even keep good track of what everyone said in a
| particular thread, so forgive me if I didn't do enough
| due diligence before making a vague implication that you
| didn't read the article. That said, you need to chill
| out. If you can't handle a vague implication that you
| didn't read the article, maybe online forum commenting
| isn't for you.
| mdorazio wrote:
| If your home is searched and the police take something
| into evidence then you absolutely do need to make
| arrangements to go get it. And yes, the police absolutely
| can and do subpoena Ring footage. The difference is that
| Ring will turn over the footage themselves since it's at
| least partially cloud-based so that they don't need to
| break into your home to get it.
|
| You seem to be opposed to the execution of search
| warrants and subpoenas in general, which is fine, but
| that's not grounds to oppose this action which is
| entirely legal.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > You seem to be opposed
|
| No, I'm suggesting that there are other ways to get to
| the footage than just impounding an innocent person's
| car. Leaving someone stranded when they've done nothing
| wrong is absolutely a dick move. It's not like they can
| leave a note in the space where you left the car. There's
| also no signage with a phone number of a towing company.
| You don't find out your car wasn't stolen until you call
| to report your car stolen.
|
| Again, they could quite easily boot your car and have a
| patrol unit wait for you to return. Or not boot the car,
| but still have a patrol unit wait. They have the license
| plate so they can look up the owner. They could try to
| contact that owner. There are so many other things to do
| than tow someone's car and leaving them stranded. The
| fact we are so willingly okay with the cops stealing your
| car is very strange to me.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Well its quite different as they don't put your home on a
| trailer and haul it away across town without telling you.
| conception wrote:
| So they say in the interview. Irregardless, if I own a car
| and it is legal for the police to take it so they can hold
| onto it until they have a warrant of I give in? No thanks.
| gruez wrote:
| >Irregardless, if I own a car and it is legal for the
| police to take it so they can hold onto it until they have
| a warrant of I give in?
|
| The article says they got the warrant before towing it.
| tamimio wrote:
| My car isn't a Tesla, and the dashcam has a "parking mode" that
| records everything while parked. So, do that, don't get a
| Tesla, and never get towed to access the camera.
| gruez wrote:
| If the police sees the dashcam and suspects that there's
| footage on there, they can apply for a search warrant and
| seize that footage as well. It's unclear why they needed to
| tow the tesla in the first place. The article says that the
| footage is on a USB drive, so presumably they could just pull
| it out and make a copy. If they're towing it because they
| couldn't locate the owner and want to open the car non-
| destructively, then your suggestion of not driving a dashcam
| and using a tesla probably isn't going to save you either.
| teslacams wrote:
| Search warrant for what ? Is footage of something illegal
| illegal too ?
| teslacams wrote:
| .. or do they have a right to see everything else that
| could be recorded on that cam just like that ?
| darth_avocado wrote:
| I used to keep my Sentry mode on all the time. Then my car got
| broken into twice. The police didn't bother to follow up despite
| having a video footage of what happened. Now I never turn it on.
| And now police wants to tow vehicles for the footage.
| gruez wrote:
| The article mentions that they tried towing a car because they
| were investigating someone who got shot and stabbed. While it'd
| be nice if police could investigate every type of crime, I
| don't see the contradiction between "police didn't follow up
| about your car being broken into despite footage" and "police
| towed a car to get footage about someone getting shot and
| stabbed"
| darth_avocado wrote:
| > While it'd be nice if police could investigate every type
| of crime
|
| That's literally their job, which they get paid for. But
| anyway, my comment was more referring to the fact that if
| they had done their job, I'd be more open to keeping my
| Sentry mode on.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > > While it'd be nice if police could investigate every
| type of crime
|
| > That's literally their job, which they get paid for.
|
| It's literally not.
|
| Their job is to do a variety of things, including
| investigation, according to the priorities of the higher,
| within the financial constraints they are given and
| according to the priorities of the authority placed over
| them (which in many cases is the top leadership of the
| police department themselves, because lots of times they
| are given a broad degree of structural independence from
| the local government they are associated with.)
|
| What you say may be what you'd like their job to be, but it
| is not _literally_ what their job is.
| nox101 wrote:
| I agree with you that the police have limited resources.
|
| At the same time, the better they do their job the less
| of it there will be to do as word spreads that you won't
| get away with it.
|
| It could be arguably be much more efficient to take in
| user video, voluntarily offered, and prosecute all easily
| provable crimes and violations.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > At the same time, the better they do their job the less
| of it there will be to do
|
| Institutionally, the police have very little interest in
| there being less perception of a need for police, that
| would result in them getting less resource, less
| deference, and more oversight and accountability.
| pjc50 wrote:
| What this conversation is getting at is the police being
| (percieved to be) selective about what they do and don't
| care about is gradually corrosive to co-operation.
| Terr_ wrote:
| This is a lengthy quote, but it's relevant and from one
| of my favorite authors:
|
| > Ah... _Keep the peace._ That was the thing. People
| often failed to understand what that meant. You 'd go to
| some life-threatening disturbance like a couple of
| neighbours scrapping in the street over who owned the
| hedge between their properties, and they'd both be
| bursting with aggrieved self-righteousness, both yelling,
| their wives would either be having a private scrap on the
| side or would have adjourned to a kitchen for a shared
| pot of tea and a chat, and they all expected you to sort
| it out. And they could never understand that it wasn't
| your job.
|
| > Sorting it out was a job for a good surveyor and a
| couple of lawyers, maybe. Your job was to quell the
| impulse to bang their stupid fat heads together, to
| ignore the affronted speeches of dodgy self-
| justification, to get them to stop shouting and to get
| them off the street. Once that had been achieved, your
| job was over. You weren't some walking god, dispensing
| finely tuned natural justice. Your job was simply to
| bring back peace.
|
| > Of course, if your few strict words didn't work and Mr
| Smith subsequently clambered over the disputed hedge and
| stabbed Mr Jones to death with a pair of gardening
| shears, then you had a different job, sorting out the
| notorious Hedge Argument Murder. But at least it was one
| you were trained to do. People expected all kinds of
| things from coppers, but there was one thing that sooner
| or later they all wanted: make this not be happening.
|
| -- _Night Watch_ by Terry Pratchett
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| It saved me $2000 bill by recording a hit an runner
| letmeinhere wrote:
| Can you elaborate why? As in, you got hit by an insured
| driver and so your insurance was able to bill them, whereas
| you didn't have collision coverage of your own?
| akira2501 wrote:
| > whereas you didn't have collision coverage of your own?
|
| That's the majority of people who don't have a lien on
| their title. Liability insurance covers what you do, it
| doesn't cover what someone does to you. So having evidence
| of who caused the accident is important when everyone just
| has liability coverage.
|
| In California, though, I really do recommend you have the
| "Uninsured and Underinsured Counterparty" option on your
| insurance. It's usually far cheaper than the alternatives
| and it just covers you with no effort on your part.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| I don't turn it on simply because it drains an absurd amount of
| battery. I don't even understand why it does so. Is it old
| tech? My Blink cameras have 2 AA Lithium batteries that take
| motion-activated video all day on a busy side-walk for at least
| a couple of months. Yet one shopping trip drains like 2%
| battery in Sentry mode, wtf? That's a lot.
| MarkMarine wrote:
| I've wondered this myself, how could 50 miles of moving
| 5000lbs at 60mph be equal to sitting running a camera for a
| day or two.
|
| When I had a model 3 it also had an absurd amount of drain
| over night, 4-5% battery when it was just sitting there
| (without overheat A/C)
|
| Leaving for vacation before I had a home charger was always
| fraught.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| You're comparing a motherboard with dual CPUs at 12+ cores
| each, a GPU, and 16GB of RAM -- to perhaps an ESP32. Very
| different design goals.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| No one said they had to hook the cameras up to a gaming PC.
| That's an engineering choice
| parl_match wrote:
| > Very different design goals.
|
| From the perspective of a sentry mode: very similar design
| goals.
| MutableLambda wrote:
| Sentry consumes around 200W on Intel Atom and camera based
| detection enabled. I'd say it's a total overkill. It even
| heats up the display pretty good when it's relatively
| chilly outside.
|
| Source: MYP 22 Intel based
| thebruce87m wrote:
| The blink camera has a PIR sensor that wakes it up so it
| starts recording video. It doesn't record video the whole
| time and running the PIR is not energy intensive.
|
| The Tesla has to run the cameras _and_ run computer vision
| algorithms to determine if something is happening.
| wl wrote:
| The Tesla also has a gigantic battery that's at least 50
| kWh. 2% of that is 1 kWh. Still seems like way too much.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I was watching a youtube video about the "Kia Boys." A group of
| young men who made a lifestyle out of stealing Kia vehicles
| with flawed anti theft systems installed.
|
| What interested me is that they make a habit of connecting
| their personal phone to the entertainment systems of vehicles
| they steal. They then use the large list of connected devices
| in their phone to brag about their stature as criminals.
|
| Which is hilarious because it's not only evidence that connects
| them to a rash of vehicle thefts, but it also means every
| stolen vehicle retains evidence of who _precisely_ stole that
| vehicle.
|
| The police don't seem to have a clue. The criminals surely
| don't.
| rbalicki wrote:
| Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers
| from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving
| dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes
| at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable,
| finding and informing their insurance company?
|
| If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did
| something with this information, it would substantially
| disincentivize driving like a complete maniac.
|
| Are insurers unable to use this information? Are they afraid of
| the backlash from being the first to accept this information? Is
| there some legal reason this isn't doable?
| freejazz wrote:
| >If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did
| something with this information, it would substantially
| disincentivize driving like a complete maniac.
|
| People who drive like complete maniacs aren't doing so
| rationally. It's called "road rage" not "road reason."
| gruez wrote:
| Disagree. While "maniacs" could include road rage behavior
| (eg. brakechecking someone), it also arguably encompasses
| other risky behavior that's not obviously associated with
| "road rage", like speeding or aggressive weaving/lane
| changes.
| freejazz wrote:
| Road rage is but one example. No one brake checking someone
| else is doing it rationally. If someone was being rational,
| they would drive reasonably. They would forgive and forget,
| and they wouldn't do dangerous things. If drivers were
| worried about their rates going up, they would not do the
| very activities that put them in that risk in the first
| place.
| gruez wrote:
| > If drivers were worried about their rates going up,
| they would not do the very activities that put them in
| that risk in the first place.
|
| Not if they're underestimating the risk. For instance, if
| they think speed limits are instituted by clueless
| bureaucrats, or they think they're better than the
| average driver and therefore can drive more aggressively.
| freejazz wrote:
| Interesting how none of the risks you cite are an
| increase into their insurance premiums. In fact, what you
| point to are completely irrational thoughts that have
| nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking
| those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low
| or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is
| the insurance premium increase. Same with being better
| than another driver, it doesn't matter if you are or
| aren't better than another driver when they crash into
| you. Your premiums will increase the same. I appreciate
| you making my point for me.
| gruez wrote:
| >In fact, what you point to are completely irrational
| thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented
| by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if
| speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket
| is the same as is the insurance premium increase.
|
| I can't tell whether you wanted an opportunity to rant
| about unjust speed limits in your area, or are trying to
| get in a smug "well ackushally \u{1F913}" response. While
| it's true that speed limits can be arbitrary and driving
| above it doesn't magically make you a dangerous driver,
| it's pretty obvious when people say "driving like a
| complete maniac", that's not the sort of behavior they're
| referring to. Thinking "speeding" and "driving like a
| complete maniac" means driving 1 mile over the speed
| limit in an artificially low speed limit zone is about
| the least charitable way of interpreting that statement.
|
| >Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't
| matter if you are or aren't better than another driver
| when they crash into you.
|
| Again, I can't tell whether you're trying to be snarky.
| Being a better driver (however it's defined) might not
| fix your car when it gets into a crash, but I don't think
| anyone doubts that a professional driver is going to be
| able to avoid more accidents than the 90 year old granny
| that only drives every sunday to go to church, when put
| in the same situations.
|
| >I appreciate you making my point for me.
|
| Whatever you say, champ.
| jrflowers wrote:
| This is a good point. People that drive recklessly and
| risk personal injury, death, and imprisonment simply do
| so because they lack a proper disincentive. They would
| think twice when they envision themselves having to cut a
| a larger check to State Farm while lying in spinal
| traction.
| gruez wrote:
| When it comes to punishment, "swift and certain" trumps
| "harsh but sporadic". Having cars snitch on everyone else
| implements the former, "lying in spinal traction"
| implements the latter.
| sodality2 wrote:
| I disagree - people do it because they are angry, and _also_
| because they're unlikely to get caught. Far less people
| commit hit&runs, because there's a much higher chance of
| getting caught.
| freejazz wrote:
| It's not because they will get caught, it's because of the
| repercussions that would happen _if they did_.
| wil421 wrote:
| There are far less hit and runs than speeders or road
| ragers.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| May not even have insurance, it's a coin toss
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| In most cases, it's a devil's brew of "Speed limits that are
| set too low" and "Drivers that aren't taught how to use lanes
| properly."
| freejazz wrote:
| Surely you don't live in a city.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| As long as we're trading non sequiturs: when you think
| about why you don't want your phone to behave this way,
| you'll understand why I don't want my car to.
| rbalicki wrote:
| My superficial understanding of research on deterring
| criminal behavior (so, I may be bullshitting) is that it's
| more effective to make the likelihood of getting caught high
| than making the punishment severe.
|
| So this might be an effective (and cheap, compared to fiery
| auto crashes and arrests) way to discourage that behavior.
|
| And if someone does not respond to the initial incentive,
| their insurance rates would continue to climb, so at some
| point in time they either end up uninsured (in which case,
| this sousveillance really ought to just inform the cops, but
| anyway, the opinion in this thread is that cops are useless,
| so YMMV) or fix their behavior.
| 0xcafefood wrote:
| It would probably have "disproportionate impact."
|
| It's really the job of police forces to act on maniac drivers.
| And they stopped doing so in 2020 for the same reason.
| oxide wrote:
| I lived in east Oakland for awhile, I'm pretty sure that
| driving stolen cars and torching them afterward don't give a
| fuck about auto insurance rates. The people who are driving
| like that on the 580 or @ 90th & Bancroft probably are
| uninsured as is.
|
| Do you really think everyone is just insured because it's the
| law? If so, you're fairly naive. Try leaving the bubble you
| live in now and then. Oakland cops stopping responding to
| anything less than murder at lot sooner than 2020 lmao.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Disproportionate impact is already acceptable with insurance,
| because they know for example that the average young woman
| drives safer than the average young man. And charges them as
| such.
| renewiltord wrote:
| They might have been in the past and it's not a bad idea for a
| data aggregator company to enable crowdsourcing to make the
| data palatable to insurers but AI video is advanced enough to
| obscure the plates and change the car model slightly.
| croes wrote:
| So they still drive like maniacs but without insurance.
| croes wrote:
| Next step, we all wear body cams and they identify people with
| inappropriate behavior.
|
| For every mistake you get a point and with enough point a
| punishment.
|
| Sounds familiar.
| gruez wrote:
| I mean, that already kinda happens today? Everyone carries a
| camera in their pocket, and public freakouts are recorded and
| posted on the internet, leading to social consequences for
| the person in question.
| monkeywork wrote:
| Which I also think has been a net negative to the Western
| world.
|
| Billy the dumbass in Gary Indiana does something stupid
| there he should be held to account by people from there,
| not posted online and receiving massive attention from the
| rest of the planet as people get off to their outrage porn
| online.
| tamimio wrote:
| Yeah, I am personally against that as well. Enforcing laws is
| a police job, not the average citizen's, because they
| "supposedly" undergo certain training to do that. If everyone
| started acting like a police officer or reporting
| insignificant things, it would get chaotic, and it
| incentivizes people being hostile against each other. The
| only exception, in my opinion, is someone reporting something
| that's substantially bad, like a homicide.
| nox101 wrote:
| reporting is not the same as policing. Telling the police
| about a crime is the norm. Then the police police based on
| the report.
| monkeywork wrote:
| when you start offering monetary rewards for non-serious
| crime reporting you end up where the number of reports
| will outrun the resources of the reviewers and eventually
| have someone be required to "protest" the report and
| claim they are innocent putting a burden on them rather
| than the burden being on the authorities to prove you've
| done something wrong first.
|
| Look at things like DMCA reporting on youtube and how it
| can be abused.
| nox101 wrote:
| What's this non serious crime you speak of? It certainly
| not theft and traffic violations. theft ruins people's
| lives. traffic violations get people killed. Since 2010,
| the number of people dying in car accidents has gone up
| 50% per capita
| monkeywork wrote:
| Theft / traffic violations / jaywalking / curfew breaking
| / or public intoxication type crimes can be handled by
| police directly - having an incentive program to have
| people go around recording and reporting this sort of
| crime if not the sort of world I want to live in.
|
| Yes I want those type of crimes punished and enforcement,
| no I do not want the masses to be working in an "all
| seeing eye" capacity for that to take place.
|
| If you can't understand that the nuance there then I
| won't have much to discuss with you.
| rbalicki wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised that businesses in shady areas don't
| have ubiquitous cameras around their properties and signs
| that "just do your crime one block away, that's all I ask".
| (Presumably that invites vandalism and there are consequently
| practical issues, but has no one pulled this off?)
| Sebb767 wrote:
| With cars, you have a license plate that will usually lead
| you to the owner. Identifying some random person, possibly
| with a hood, on noisy camera night vision is a lot harder;
| when you don't have a reasonably small pool of suspects,
| it's basically impossible.
|
| Even if it would be possible to identify people with a
| combination of cell phone area warrants and/or by following
| all cameras around, this level of effort would be far too
| high (and too invasive) for small crimes like theft and
| vandalism.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| you conveniently left out the fact that anyone driving a car
| or truck is driving a dangerous vehicle that can trivially
| kill or maim others. Driving is supposed to be a privilege,
| not a right. That comes with responsibility.
|
| How you think this is the same as "being naughty while
| walking outside" is hilarious to me.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| however i see your point. i believe this is really a
| failure of police in our modern society. police don't take
| driving incidents seriously! it's their job after all.
| monkeywork wrote:
| so if someone is carrying a baseball bat, a knife, or any
| other sort of weapon that can trivially kill or maim others
| they should be wearing the body cam?
| lr4444lr wrote:
| I doubt it'd tell them any more than they already know. These
| drivers tend to have been given citations already.
|
| The real money would be in giving civilians whose footage leads
| to a successful prosecution for moving violations a percentage
| of the fine. NYC already has something like this for people who
| catch too-long idling trucks and photograph/video record it.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Do insurers really know about citations?
| tylerrobinson wrote:
| Are you kidding? Absolutely. For moving violations you can
| look forward to the ticket itself plus increased insurance
| premiums.
| monkeywork wrote:
| I'm not an expert and I'm not one to get many tickets
| however my understanding is that they only look up
| individuals during renewal time or if you change policy
| or company.
|
| If you got a speeding ticket on week 10 of the year there
| is unlikely to be any increase on your insurance on week
| 35.
|
| Like I said this was my perhaps incorrect understanding
| of how it works here in Canada.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This is my understanding as well but with net technology
| perhaps they are checking more often now.
| atonse wrote:
| I don't know how much detail they have but yes, insurers in
| the US do know if you've received a ticket for a moving
| violation (parking violations are irrelevant).
|
| Many of them use solutions like LexisNexis Risk Solutions
| (which is like a 3rd party API that can return this data).
| How LNRS gets the data, I'm not sure.
|
| For example, insurers also get data for stolen vehicles
| since it affects claims. I know this because in a previous
| (local government) job, I literally sat on calls about
| building an integration where we sent license plates of
| stolen cars (officially reported stolen to the police), if
| we wrote parking tickets for those cars, since we (another
| local gov agency) spotted the stolen car.
|
| To me, even though I have strong feelings against privacy
| and surveillance, this felt like a totally pragmatic (and
| laser focused, it only affect cars that were currently
| designated stolen) use of the data.
| pixl97 wrote:
| The level of crazy driving to citations is rather low.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > The real money would be in giving civilians whose footage
| leads to a successful prosecution for moving violations a
| percentage of the fine.
|
| I've heard lots of talk of civil war in this country, but
| this is the first serious plan I've seen for how to start
| one.
| sowbug wrote:
| Contracting out patrolling to private citizens would be a
| brilliant way to get around that pesky Bill of Rights.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| This is already done via traffic cameras, which are
| operated by contracted private outfits. Letting any
| civilian submit the footage, for a judge to review, would
| amount to a qui tam action. It's not unprecedented. Would
| the average citizen want to risk his identity being
| exposed if the defendant demands an audit of the footage?
| I couldn't say.
| monkeywork wrote:
| You've heard all the horror stories of HOA's ... yeah
| lets add those people into other area's of peoples lives.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Can you elaborate on what would be bypassed by
| "patrolling?"
|
| If the government was _really_ contracting something out,
| then there 's an argument to be made that it's on behalf
| of the government therefore it's government action and
| therefore it may be prohibited.
|
| If nothing else, I'm pretty confident that my 3rd-
| amendment rights to not have soldiers crashing on my
| couch is safe from whatever my neighbor does with their
| dashcam.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > The real money would be in giving civilians whose footage
| leads to a successful prosecution for moving violations a
| percentage of the fine.
|
| I don't know where you live, but around me, the police are so
| disinterested in traffic safety that roads have turned into a
| Mad Max free-for-all. Red light running, stop sign running,
| lack of signaling, weaving in and out of lanes, and general
| belligerence on the road. That and 90% of drivers are playing
| on their smartphones. Police departments could get infinite
| money by just opening their eyes and pulling nearly anyone
| over.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| In my area, this is one their most intense efforts - fines
| are very profitable to the municipality.
| rcpt wrote:
| California?
| rbalicki wrote:
| Also NYC, also Miami. I never got this impression in the
| Bay Area when I lived there (10 years ago)
| y-curious wrote:
| Enforcement of red light running has been de facto nil
| for the past 4 years until a couple of months ago. The
| cynic in me guesses that this is due to the election
| cycle.
| monkeywork wrote:
| That is typically a case of police trying to negotiate
| funding, it will go in a cycle once a contract gets
| renegotiated they will go on a blitz to show how effective
| the funding was and then over time let it start to slide
| again.
| bsder wrote:
| > The real money would be in giving civilians whose footage
| leads to a successful prosecution for moving violations a
| percentage of the fine.
|
| This is 200% in the wrong direction.
|
| We should be removing the incentive for the justice system to
| benefit from collected money _at all_ let alone expanding it.
|
| "Incentivized" justice is gigantic moral hazard. The system
| will invent "crimes" in order to keep the money flowing.
| andylynch wrote:
| Insurers may not be the best recipients given most of those
| things are criminal matters.
|
| In my country, most police forces accept dashcam evidence from
| other road users, and will prosecute on it. It's seen be the
| police as a great road safety tool.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Is there a risk such video could be fabricated to frame
| someone for a crime they didn't commit, or even that never
| happened?
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Why would they need to do this when the car makers give them
| all the data they want already?
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv...
| rbalicki wrote:
| This seems to indicate that it shares data on the car itself,
| not on other drivers :/
| 23B1 wrote:
| Great question.
|
| There is nothing stopping them.
|
| Which is why a privacy amendment must be passed and enforced
| with ruthless abandon if we don't want to pave the way for -
| and eventually become - an Orwellian panopticon in the service
| of authoritarians.
| xattt wrote:
| ALPR units are used the license plate recognition already.
| tamimio wrote:
| It won't work as you expect. Most of these drivers don't have
| insurance. Second, you might make things worse, as now you have
| other Karen-like drivers who will eventually start threatening
| other people to report them, and that will escalate a situation
| from flipping a bird to a more dangerous situation. I sometimes
| watch dashcam rage videos on YouTube, and these drivers won't
| care or even become more aggressive once told there's a
| dashcam. This is not to mention the questionable results of ML
| that could report false positives.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| It's not clear to me how you can claim most of these drivers
| don't have insurance.
|
| Also. Nothing is stopping Karen's from reporting things right
| now. So what if they do? If you've done nothing wrong then
| the reviewer would just trash it. And probably put Karen's
| reports in the "immediately discard" pile in the future if
| she sends in frivolous claims all the time.
| tamimio wrote:
| I watched dashcam videos, and most times after accidents,
| it turned out that there is no insurance or, worse, wrong
| insurance information is given, only to be found later that
| it's fake. Obviously, this is not real statistics, but
| something I observed.
|
| > nothing is stopping Karens from reporting things
|
| True, but when you provide a platform for that, you
| incentivize the behavior. As mentioned below, you might
| start getting "points" in the app for these reports, just
| like how you report gas prices and get points that might
| win you free gas.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| And likewise, you might get points deducted for wasting
| the reviewers time with a frivolous submission.
| nosianu wrote:
| The far more risky and dangerous - ostensibly for the
| original caller too - phenomenon of _swatting_ exists
| despite all that. I would not be so sure about the
| quality of society 's controls and feedback mechanisms.
| iwishiknewlisp wrote:
| Around 10-30% of drivers in the United States don't have
| car insurance depending on the state.
|
| It really depends on the state on how strict they are with
| car insurance. My state is very lax and they don't even
| really check at the DMV. The fine for not having car
| insurance is also only ~300 bucks and a 90 day license
| suspension and it only goes up slightly until like the 4-5
| time you get caught. It just honestly doesn't make sense to
| have car insurance with the cost/risk that low. People who
| pay $50-100 bucks a month for car insurance are morons btw.
| You can insure yourself for like $30k, and you don't have
| $30k lying around paying $100 bucks a month is a terrible
| financial decision.
|
| Insurance in general is a whole racket. Its literally only
| works due to the fact people on average pay more than they
| receive. "Oh but what if a bad thing happens" way to live
| your life, disregarding economics and averages.
|
| Take out a personal loan or save the money you would spend
| on insurance evry year in a liquid asset (not cash that's
| almost as bad as insurance). Buying insurance is for npcs.
|
| Only insurance that makes sense to have is insurance that
| is government subsidized, but that isn't because its better
| its because you are forced to pay part of its cost with
| your taxes. Enjoy getting screwed sideways by big
| government, who literally paya middle man to help ensure
| their citizens get healthcare instead of directly to the
| actual healthcare facilities. Insurance offers no service,
| its a worse scam than banks and credit cards combined.
| ryandrake wrote:
| It's shocking how many people are uninsured or
| underinsured. Plus, insurance minimums are absolutely
| ridiculous. Florida's minimum is $10K property damage,
| $10K personal injury, and they don't even require bodily
| injury liability. Total insanity. You crash into a
| Porsche full of doctors with that kind of coverage, and
| you're going bankrupt.
|
| Most states have a minimum of around $25K for bodily
| injury liability. You can't even step foot into a
| hospital without paying $20K, so WTF is the minimum
| supposed to pay for exactly?
|
| I guess a lot of drivers have so little to their name
| that they are judgment-proof and just don't care if they
| get sued for $2M.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > You can insure yourself for like $30k, and you don't
| have $30k lying around paying $100 bucks a month is a
| terrible financial decision.
|
| Certainly not here (Washington), you must have at least
| $60,000 AND it MUST be deposited with the DOL or State,
| unavailable to you, and you will not earn interest on it.
|
| How do you propose people get to and from work to come up
| with $30-60K in savings that they can afford just to have
| sitting on account with the state?
|
| > Take out a personal loan or save the money you would
| spend on insurance evry year
|
| You're generally paying around 9-12% on this personal
| loan. Say it's over 5 years (that's assuming you can
| afford the $1,300/month payment), you're paying $21,000
| in interest.
|
| > Buying insurance is for npcs.
|
| So your solution to NOT pay $50-100 a month for insurance
| is to pay a lender $1,300/mo for 5 years (assuming the
| amounts haven't increased then)? I don't think you've
| actually thought this through.
|
| It literally would take you FIFTY YEARS to break even on
| this plan.
|
| And in the meantime, you're only "insured" for the
| minimums, and if you're in a car accident at fault can
| easily be sued for more.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| If I'm reading RCW 46.29.560 correctly, you do get the
| interest, and I think you can shop around to hopefully
| get a decent rate on a CD to deposit?
|
| That said, if you expect 10% returns on equities and 5%
| interest on a CD, you still need to be paying around
| $3k/year for insurance for that to be a good deal on
| expectation. It could make sense if interest rates are
| either really high or really low (so you could borrow the
| money and just pay it back and switch to normal insurance
| if rates rise) I guess. Or I suppose if you use a loan to
| buy a CD, you'd just be paying the spread. Seems like a
| lot of work and extra liability to maybe save a few
| hundred dollars when presumably anyone doing this would
| consider that a rounding error.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > Insurance in general is a whole racket. Its literally
| only works due to the fact people on average pay more
| than they receive. "Oh but what if a bad thing happens"
| way to live your life, disregarding economics and
| averages.
|
| That's literally the _entire_ point of insurance. You pay
| a little more than the average you're expected to
| actually need so that, in the event of a catastrophic
| event, your not on the hook for an amount that would
| destroy you financially. The fact that any sane person
| would think that you should expect to collect, on
| average, more from insurance than you pay into it... is
| baffling to me. Just plain math would show that's
| impossible.
| Wytwwww wrote:
| Right.. except the whole "argument" falls apart if we
| consider liability insurance. You can't force other
| people to have an extra $30k "just in case".
| yuliyp wrote:
| The point of mandated auto insurance is that a lot of
| people don't have an extra 30k, but we want even those
| without that extra 30k to be able to drive without those
| they might get into an accident with having their car
| damaged through no fault of their own and no way to get
| back the money from the person who caused it.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| > If you've done nothing wrong then the reviewer would just
| trash it.
|
| Or, more likely, they'll just see it as a report and raise
| your rates, because you've been reported by someone.
| Because they can; all they need is a reason.
|
| Plus, I don't like the idea that someone I don't like could
| editorially create a video of it looking like I was driving
| irresponsibly, and then my rates go up. Then they do it
| again and again.
|
| Example: When I leave in the morning, I take my daughter to
| the bus stop. I then wait for her bus to get there, she
| gets on, and I wait to turn left onto the road. The bus
| driver waves me on, to take my left before they let the
| other traffic go, so I don't have to wait for 20+ cars. I
| turn left and off I go. I expect it wouldn't be hard to
| edit a video of that to make it look like I pulled up to a
| bus picking up children and then drove through the bus stop
| signal illegally.
| mangosteenjuice wrote:
| If we're talking about the Bay Area, anecdotally my
| experience is the percentage of uninsured drivers seems
| MUCH higher than other California metros.
|
| I have used footage from my Tesla to get evidence and plate
| # that I could hand over to my insurance company and the
| police three times. 2 out of 3 were uninsured. This was
| during the past two years.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Honestly using it for actual serious violent crimes is way
| better than speeding
| jrflowers wrote:
| > What is stopping some small percent of drivers from
| installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving
| dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple
| lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is
| identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company?
|
| What has stopped you from doing that personally?
| porphyra wrote:
| Nobody has developed that yet and OP might not have the
| skills to do so, but if an easy-to-install github repo were
| available then the lowered barrier to entry might make it
| possible. Theoretically, Teslas already know how fast every
| car around them is going and how they are driving, as
| evidenced by the 3D "FSD visualization", but I am guessing
| that piping this information out to rat out the reckless
| drivers is going to be super hard.
| rbalicki wrote:
| I would! But I have a job and side projects that take up my
| time.
| morkalork wrote:
| Where I live, speeding and red light cameras can only issue
| fines to the plate holder and don't affect the demerit points
| of the driver because they don't have evidence of who was
| driving the vehicle. I imagine it would go the same way with
| insurance. Unless a cop pulls the person over and gets their
| ID, tough luck.
| lalaithion wrote:
| The comment you're responding to is postulating enforcement
| via higher insurance costs. If insurance gets ~20 reports of
| someone running a red light, maybe they'll double the cost to
| insure that person.
| morkalork wrote:
| But that's the catch, using ML to scan a plate doesn't
| confirm who was driving.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| Nor does it actually confirm that the plate _matches_ the
| car.
|
| Otherwise i'd spend some time 3d printing something that
| looks a LOT like my neighbors license plate and wait
| until 1 AM and just blow the same red light over and over
| and over.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| For insurance underwriting, would it need to? "People
| whose household receive X anonymous tips" is a cohort
| that either does or does not have more insurable risk,
| and if it does correlate then you can make an attempt to
| adjust premiums accordingly.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The driver doesn't matter when it comes to insurance.
| It's the owner of the car who holds the policy.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| It doesn't matter, right? It's the vehicle that is
| insured
| kragen wrote:
| you could report anyone you disliked, as long as you could find
| out what their car looked like, even if they weren't speeding
| or running reds etc. convincingly editing the traffic light
| color in a video doesn't even require artificial neural
| networks. trump voters in progressive communities, for example,
| or progressive voters in right-wing communities
| rayiner wrote:
| We should do this for HOV violators.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The same thing that allows drivers to run red light cameras and
| cover their face with their hand
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| In Europe, this would most likely be considered a violation of
| various privacy rules (specifics depend on country, but could
| include criminal penalties for the person doing this).
|
| In the US, I could totally see that happening.
| mig39 wrote:
| Technically, dashcams are illegal in some European countries.
| whaleofatw2022 wrote:
| Ford AFAIK actually has a patent of some sort for this [0]
|
| [0] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a61793292/ford-cop-cars-
| sp...
| sschueller wrote:
| In Switzerland it would be the law preventing that.
|
| Running ML on public footage of people who did not consent is a
| huge no-no.
|
| Dashcams are already a problem and technically illegal although
| tolerated. The footage can't generally be used on court.
| moate wrote:
| Swiss privacy law is absolutely insane to me both for the
| protection it provides (good) but also for the protection it
| provides(bad). I guess all tools are weapons in the right
| hands.
| joshu wrote:
| https://www.getnexar.com/
| monkeywork wrote:
| Just tossing a product link into the discussion without any
| context isn't overly useful - why are you recommending (or
| are you) and why should I be clicking on that?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Given the potential for abuse, the insurance company probably
| can't really do much aside from writing a letter to the driver
| saying someone observed them driving dangerously.
|
| Probably the letter should be more specific, include pictures,
| and it should not be entirely anonymous. You should be able to
| find out if someone is trying to make trouble for you.
|
| It might not even be legally possible anyway. Insurance
| companies have a lot of regulation.
| pmichaud wrote:
| Setting aside the obvious dystopian next steps, I think the
| main problem with automated traffic law enforcement is that our
| laws are quite bad in the sense that they rely on enforcement
| being loose and somewhat subjective to even work at all. The
| speeds on various roads, the timing of traffic lights, the
| places one can park and for how long, etc, are not carefully
| planned or thought out enough to actually work if everyone were
| to strictly adhere to them. It all works because lots of people
| can briefly park in illegal places, choose reasonable times to
| speed, or reasonable moments to use the shoulder to go around
| obstructions, etc.
|
| Obviously you capture some craziness on the margin that you
| want to capture, but also on the margin is the fudging that
| makes the whole thing work at all.
| mft_ wrote:
| I'm struggling to understand your point, or to imagine many
| examples which support it.
|
| I agree that brief minor parking infringements _may_
| occasionally make people's lives more efficient; but I can't
| think of any examples where traffic lights and speed limits
| _need_ to be routinely disregarded?
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| From what I remember of my CA driver's license test (had to
| re-take the written test when I moved to CA), there is no
| actual speed limit in CA. The speed limit is "whatever
| conditions deem safe".
|
| Maybe OP meant something like that?
| aduffy wrote:
| As someone who got their first drivers license in
| California, I can say with certainty that there are in
| fact speed limits.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| It's sometimes safer to speed up 5mph over the limit to get
| through a yellow light, than to slam your brakes with
| someone behind you. It's frequently safer to speed to match
| people speeding around you then to match the stated speed
| limit (usually on freeways).
| askvictor wrote:
| These are both problems caused by poor driving (other
| peoples' in this case). Maybe with a traffic law
| panopticon everyone would drive better and these would
| disappear
| mauvehaus wrote:
| This is actually a problem with speed limits that don't
| match the road or alternatively, roads that aren't
| designed to incentivize people driving the intended
| speed.
|
| In theory, the speed limit should be set to the 80th or
| 85th percentile speed of traffic, and the road should be
| engineered so that the 80th percentile speed is
| appropriate to the surroundings.
|
| https://www.mikeontraffic.com/85th-percentile-speed-
| explaine...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
| ta8645 wrote:
| It's not just about efficiency, it's also about quality of
| life. There is a reason that a cop has permission to use
| his judgement when deciding to write a ticket or not.
| Because life is better when we don't live under the
| oppression of draconian rule keepers all the time. Rules
| are meant to protect people, and as such are often
| specified in terms of the lowest common denominator, with
| the understanding that the system doesn't enforce them when
| they can be reasonably ignored, using good judgement.
|
| Life will be shittier for everyone if an army of self-
| empowered rule-loving busybodies get to expand their
| current powers beyond the realm of the HOA.
| repeekad wrote:
| You clearly haven't received a letter in the mail for $250
| because a camera saw you barely not fully stop for a red
| light right turn at _3am with zero traffic_
|
| A human in the loop needs to be the first line of defense,
| if an officer isn't willing to be in the field to issue the
| ticket and show up in court to defend it then there
| shouldn't be a ticket in the first place, full stop
| askvictor wrote:
| Were you in that much of a hurry to not be able to wait
| 30 seconds for the traffic light?
| repeekad wrote:
| That's not the point, a surveillance state where the
| panopticon autonomously gives $250 tickets is the issue
|
| Rules aren't meant to be cold hard algorithms to blindly
| punish people with; we wouldn't automate a judge with an
| algorithm why is it somehow different to automate a
| police officer with one?
| mauvehaus wrote:
| At 3am? Bed presumably.
| lolinder wrote:
| We're talking about a rolling right turn on red, not
| crossing the whole intersection on red. The turn is
| allowed but the camera took issue with how much of a stop
| came first.
|
| I don't know very many drivers who wouldn't recognize
| that camera behavior at 3:00 in the morning as
| unreasonable.
| gog wrote:
| I believe the commenter is in US where you are allowed to
| make a right turn on a red light but you must stop and
| make sure it's safe to do so.
| monkeywork wrote:
| That is a discussion that can be had between the offender
| and the police officer, also depending what you are
| driving (ie a motorcycle) often traffic lights may not
| detect you and you can be sitting there forever.
|
| Put it this way would you feel comfortable having your
| phone just passively watching you and anytime you break
| any law that is on the books it calls the cops on you? If
| you can see that as over reaching you can understand why
| others don't want automated enforcement done to them.
| rbalicki wrote:
| I would think that once enforcement becomes automated (and
| thus applies to those with resources, who currently get away
| with it), there would be a lot of pressure on the legislature
| (by those who currently get away with it) to make the rules
| better. Legislatures can move fast, but only when they're
| motivated. e.g. if every NYC taxi suddenly got a ticket every
| time they stopped in the street to pick up a passenger, those
| laws would be updated very quickly.
| jdietrich wrote:
| Here in the UK, the police actively encourage the public to
| submit dashcam footage of motoring offences.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-64386371
|
| https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/driving-1/2021-02/one-in-f...
| paradox460 wrote:
| Back when I used to cross the San Mateo bridge frequently, I'd
| see the same group of drivers routinely driving dangerously and
| breaking multiple laws. I had dashcam footage. I once called up
| CHP and asked if they wanted it. They politely told me where to
| shove it
|
| The police don't want to enforce the laws that are written.
| They don't even pull over drivers without license plates.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Problem is there is no punishment to the criminals. Why risk
| your life/job just to have the criminal released hours later.
|
| I was a big believer of police reform, but realized the whole
| system was broken and police are just a symptom. And most
| actors are actually behaving somewhat rationally.
|
| The sad part is criminals are finally realizing this. I have
| a cousin who hangs with a "crowd" and it's amazing how
| prolific and bold some are. And how many people know about
| the crimes and no one really says anything. And apparently
| police know about a lot of it too, but apparently a case that
| prosecutors will take is an exceptionally high bar.
| _moof wrote:
| As much as I think I'd love to be able to write traffic tickets
| during my commutes, I don't think anyone wants to live in a
| world where everyone is a cop.
|
| I think you'll find too that a lot of people think laws are for
| _other_ people. _My_ speeding is totally justified.
| Swizec wrote:
| As someone who speeds on highways (but not in cities/towns),
| I wish more people sped. The left lane is for crime, get out
| of the way.
| alexvitkov wrote:
| "The Snitch-mobile"
| hnburnsy wrote:
| > Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of
| drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars
| driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing
| multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is
| identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company?
|
| GM is already doing this, look it up.
| rbalicki wrote:
| Do you have more info about this?
| hnburnsy wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/technology/general-
| motors...
|
| This is the reporting bad drivers to insurance companies
| part, not the cameras part.
| eddd-ddde wrote:
| I have 100% thought about a drivers rating system where users
| rate other drivers.
|
| Even better, not only notify insurance companies, but notify
| other drivers that the idiot in front of them is dangerous so
| they can react.
| rbalicki wrote:
| The touch screen in a Tesla could easily surface such
| information about the cars around them. That's great
| pdar4123 wrote:
| Seems like a great idea. The police should do this... bring
| back red light cameras and automated speed traps.
| duped wrote:
| Red light cameras have perverse incentives that have led to
| municipal corruption and made intersections more dangerous.
| jclulow wrote:
| Can you perhaps expand on the incentives and the mechanism
| of increased danger?
| lolinder wrote:
| The goal of a red light camera is ostensibly to make an
| intersection safer, but the fact that the city gets money
| when people get tickets incentivizes them to actually
| keep the intersection difficult to navigate correctly.
| They lose money if they adjust timings to be more
| appropriate for the situation or if they make the lights
| more visible or if they replace the light with a
| roundabout.
|
| It also penalizes driving behaviors that are objectively
| not very dangerous far more harshly than a human police
| officer would--a lot of the profit from a red light
| camera comes from rolling right turns on red, which is
| very often a perfectly safe behavior that actually helps
| traffic move more smoothly (for example, when you
| technically have a red but there's a left turn crossing
| in the opposite direction providing complete cover for
| your move).
| duped wrote:
| Sure, when the cameras start turning into a source of
| revenue then the city has an incentive to adjust the
| timing of the lights to maximize revenue and not minimize
| harm. This has happened (notably, the city of Chicago
| reduced the time of yellows and it led to more tickets
| _and_ more accidents).
|
| The other thing to remember is that governments don't
| operate red light cameras. They hire contracting
| businesses to install and operate them, and normally
| instead of paying a fixed rental/maintenance rate for the
| cameras those companies typically get paid a fraction of
| the fines. That means the designer/operator of the camera
| doesn't have much incentive to make the camera accurate
| or maximize safety, but to maximize how many cars it can
| issue tickets to (whether or not they're actually
| breaking the law or not).
|
| When you take that to the extreme, the red light camera
| companies will even lobby local politicians to install
| more of them, and advertise them not as a tool for safety
| but for revenue. In some cases they've straight up bribed
| mayors and city officials with kickbacks from the ticket
| revenue.
|
| All told, red light cameras are pretty shitty at making
| roads safer. What we really need are narrower roads with
| fewer lanes and smaller cars, but that's systemic. If we
| want to make specific intersections safer you can park a
| traffic enforcement officer at the intersection which
| will do more than any camera will.
| rbalicki wrote:
| Responses here seem to not take into account:
|
| - elasticity of laws. If all of a sudden every well-to-do law-
| abiding doctor, engineer and lawyer gets a fine on their daily
| commute for speeding 5 mph over the limit, there's going to
| instantly be a lot of pressure to change the speed limit to
| something reasonable.
|
| - the amount of absolutely insane, dangerous behavior on the
| highways (people weaving in and out at 100 mph, etc.). It may
| be tough for an insurance company to act on a tip that someone
| changed lanes without using their blinkers, it certainly won't
| be tough if there's video evidence of them going 100 mph.
|
| - the fact that insurance companies (presumably) do not need to
| know the identity of the driver to raise rates. If your car is
| regularly being driven by your brother at 100mph, it's still
| your insurance that's going to pay if he gets in an accident.
|
| - while the police sound like they've given up on enforcing any
| traffic laws, it's in the insurance company's financial
| interest not to insure dangerous drivers. (And while that's
| sad, maybe private sousveillance is better than anarchy. People
| can have differing opinions.)
| m463 wrote:
| It's an ROA, like an HOA, but for everywhere.
|
| I wonder if folks could wear an emitter mask to prevent
| identification of their face? (like a hockey mask but covered
| in bright IR LEDs to confuse cameras)
| Aurornis wrote:
| This is an idea that only sounds good when you imagine it being
| applied to the drivers you dislike.
|
| When people started getting higher insurance rates because a
| vigilante dashcam operator caught them driving 68 in a 65 three
| different times or because they only slowed to 1MPH instead of
| 0MPH at a 4-way stop, then it wouldn't seem like such a good
| idea any more.
| 39896880 wrote:
| Informing the insurance company... how? Everything done by a
| large corp like an insurer has a specific workflow. There is no
| form to upload a video of someone behaving badly. Emailing some
| rando at Geico with an mp4 is going to be met with total
| indifference because the corporate drone answering whatever
| emails aren't autoreplied or spamcanned will have no process by
| which to respond
| akira2501 wrote:
| > it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete
| maniac.
|
| You are presuming that the manics are otherwise legally
| entitled to drive and have valid insurance. It should be no
| surprise to learn that they, very largely, do not.
|
| They already don't care about your incentive system.
| lolinder wrote:
| It's so very HN that we get into fits about Google and Facebook
| and Apple and so on tracking us to make a buck, but the idea of
| an insurance company deputizing millions of cameras to perform
| mass surveillance to make a buck is suddenly okay because
| drivers that make us angry on the road get hurt by it.
|
| The obvious answer to this proposal is that I believe that I
| have a right to not be monitored and penalized by autonomous
| algorithms, and I'm not ready to compromise on that right just
| because some people drive dangerously. All of the same
| arguments HN will reliably raise against algorithmic _anything_
| apply here, but apparently that all goes out the window when
| cars become involved.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| > but the idea of an insurance company deputizing millions of
| cameras to perform mass surveillance to make a buck is
| suddenly okay because drivers that make us angry on the road
| get hurt by it.
|
| I'd word it more like drivers who put me and others around me
| in danger should be punished for driving recklessly.
| lolinder wrote:
| Fair enough. After all, as we all know, the only reason to
| object to massive surveillance nets is if you're a criminal
| who has something to hide. Since I keep the law all that
| tracking and monitoring won't affect me.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| What makes you think the drivers who drive that way have
| insurance?
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Freedom requires both Liberty and Privacy. An all-seeing state
| will destroy Liberal society.
|
| Reform requires reform of both the government and industry.
| Industry will happily gather the data and the state will then buy
| it from industry as a means to circumvent the 4th amendment.
|
| https://reason.com/2024/08/20/how-the-feds-buy-their-way-aro...
| Aloisius wrote:
| What does that have to do with this article?
|
| The police are getting warrants for the video.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| They aren't getting warrants to tow the vehicles. They have
| no right to seize private property, especially the private
| property of someone not even involved with the crime in
| question. And what if the Tesla owner, as is their right or
| at least should be, refuses to release the video footage? How
| long do the police keep the illegally seized vehicle while
| the owner sorts out the seizure before the courts and at what
| personal cost? And what is prevents the police from obtaining
| the video through extrajudicial means? Does Tesla itself have
| access to the video? Can they sell/give it to the police? Are
| there legal safeguards against this or is it an open market
| as the linked Reason article shows? All of the above applies
| to any aftermarket camera security system as well. Also, if
| the police get access to the car data by some means, can they
| use any of the data to file separate charges against an
| uncooperative owner as retribution if they desire? There are
| many questions along these lines when dealing with an
| intrusive police state.
| davidt84 wrote:
| > They aren't getting warrants to tow the vehicles.
|
| Um, FTA:
|
| > "Based on this information," Godchaux wrote, "I
| respectfully request that a warrant is authorized to seize
| this vehicle from the La Quinta Inn parking lot so this
| vehicle's surveillance footage may be searched via an
| additional search warrant at a secure location."
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| I misspoke. They should no right to tow the private
| property of uninvolved individuals, warrant or no
| warrant. It is police overreach.
| moate wrote:
| Freedom does not require Liberty because Freedom does not
| require the state. Liberties are granted, not natural,
| Freedoms. Freedom sounds great and people love to hype it, but
| doesn't exist in a meaningful way in most advanced societies.
|
| If we're going to use proper nouns, we need to use them
| properly.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Go live in the remote wilderness in your cabin. The rest of
| this will live within civilized society with our necessary
| liberties, thank you very much.
| netsec_burn wrote:
| https://archive.is/M81lw
| neilv wrote:
| Who gave Tesla and their drivers the right to set up video
| surveillance cameras in public?
| snozolli wrote:
| Unless they're parking in an area with a reasonable expectation
| of privacy, such as a locker room, it's perfectly legal to
| record in the United States.
| neilv wrote:
| You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable
| expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue
| differently.
|
| For example, the upskirt "street photographers" have long
| argued one way, and eventually they get smacked down,
| legally.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| It's hard to take your argument serious when you choose a
| pretty absurd example. You walk around the street with a
| pair of eyes on your face, but that doesn't mean you can
| just bend over and look up people's clothing.
|
| The law clearly establishes a difference between capturing
| "normal" content in public and invading privacy.
| neilv wrote:
| Do the privacy laws regarding public surveillance speak
| of "content"? Because that sounds like something a
| techbro smug halfwit would say.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Yes, and in California, where this article is based,
| there are explicit laws against this.
| gruez wrote:
| >You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable
| expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue
| differently.
|
| No. The guy you're replying to isn't giving his opinion on
| whether it should be allowed or not, he's stating how the
| law works right now.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(Unite
| d...
| pbohun wrote:
| We've seen this type of thing happen with Ring, where the police
| want video from people's private cameras. Do police have the
| legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I
| thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against
| unreasonable searches and seizures?
| gruez wrote:
| >Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private
| property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the
| constitution protected against unreasonable searches and
| seizures?
|
| Search warrants specifically exist to give police the "legal
| right to access/take people's private property", and are widely
| accepted to be constitutional.
| brvsft wrote:
| You pretend this is some obvious fact, but obtaining a search
| warrant against a person or property that were uninvolved in
| the crime but may have only been 'witness' to it is not
| obvious or clear to me.
| zerocrates wrote:
| The standard for getting a search warrant is probable
| cause, and that includes just probable cause to believe
| that there is evidence of a crime at the place to be
| searched.
|
| Taking the witness analogy, even an actual person who's a
| mere witness can be compelled to testify with a subpoena.
| ralferoo wrote:
| This might be setting a new precedent though. I'm making
| assumptions here, but I'd have thought that search warrants
| were historically used at locations where the suspect lived /
| worked / frequented. Even at premises not owned by the
| suspect, the police turning up and requiring all the security
| footage doesn't deprive the premise owner of anything. Towing
| away an innocent law-abiding citizen's car for a matter
| entirely unrelated to them seems like it's massively
| overstepping the line set by any previous precedent.
|
| I can't think of anything else that could be seized by the
| police from an entirely innocent non-suspect which would
| cause a similar level of disruption in their life. What
| happens when the car owner needs to head to work in the
| morning and find their car has been taken. I doubt a call to
| the police is going to quickly reveal that it was the police
| themselves who took it. Even if it does, if they're holding
| it for evidence, they might not get it back very quickly.
| What if the lack of car leads to negative consequences for
| the owner - maybe they miss an important work meeting,
| flight, date, whatever - are the police going to compensate
| them for that? What if the owner is out of the country for a
| month and they only need a week to act on the court order and
| get all the video - does the owner then have to pay impound
| fees? Is it discriminatory that the police assume all Tesla's
| can be seized this way even if they don't happen to be
| recording, but they wouldn't consider doing to same to any
| other make of car even though any car might have a dash-cam
| that records when locked.
| gruez wrote:
| >This might be setting a new precedent though. I'm making
| assumptions here, but I'd have thought that search warrants
| were historically used at locations where the suspect lived
| / worked / frequented.
|
| Search warrants exist to give police access to evidence
| when there's probable cause. Often times this is "at
| locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented",
| but there's nothing in the jurisprudence that limits it to
| those areas. The standard is "probable cause" in any case.
|
| >Even at premises not owned by the suspect, the police
| turning up and requiring all the security footage doesn't
| deprive the premise owner of anything. Towing away an
| innocent law-abiding citizen's car for a matter entirely
| unrelated to them seems like it's massively overstepping
| the line set by any previous precedent.
|
| They can and do break into premises, even if they're "an
| innocent law-abiding citizen", if the owner isn't there to
| allow them access onto the premises. The article
| specifically mentions that they only tow the car if they
| can't contact the owner, which seems consistent with that.
| ralferoo wrote:
| > They can and do break into premises
|
| That's fair enough to some extent. Not sure about the US,
| but in the UK they are also responsible for re-securing
| the access point when they leave, and I believe you can
| claim compensation for the repair work. Presumably also,
| if there were any thefts while the property was in this
| vulnerable state, the insurance company would sue the
| police to try to reclaim the money paid out to cover the
| loss.
|
| Taking someone's primary mode of transport, perhaps their
| only viable option, is a whole order of magnitude worse
| than breaking into a property to carry out a search
| warrant. For someone who's not even a suspect, or in any
| way connected, it's a massive violation of their rights.
|
| > only tow the car if they can't contact the owner, which
| seems consistent with that
|
| To be honest, it seems unlikely they'd easily be able to
| contact the owner, unless it happens to be parked outside
| their own residence. And the flip side of them not being
| able to contact the owner to ask permission is that the
| owner has absolutely no idea where their car is, and they
| only find out it's missing when they need it most. And
| probably not in an area they'd like to hang around too
| long in, if there's just been a homicide near there.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| If it's my outdoor cameras and it pertains to a crime that
| happened just outside my home, they can have the footage. A
| very practical contribution I can make to my neighborhoods
| safety
| jajko wrote:
| When they will come for evidence, they will not care whether
| its your external camera or baby watcher or whatever they
| will deem necessary.
| monkeywork wrote:
| So if the camera is in your car you are ok with them towing
| it away to pull the footage if they can't get in touch with
| you right away leaving you without a car?
|
| What if while looking at your footage for a crime outside
| your home (not related to you or your property) they see you
| doing something that could constitute a charge should they be
| able to share you for it as well?
|
| If someone saw you out in front of your house on your phone
| during the time of the crime should the authorities be able
| to seize your phone under the assumption that you were likely
| recording the incident?
| Terr_ wrote:
| > towing it away
|
| I think these hypotheticals are starting to blur different
| concepts and questions, namely the distinction between:
|
| 1. Generic request
|
| 2. Subpeona
|
| 3. Warrant (reasonable)
|
| 4. Warrant (stupid/crazy/evil)
|
| ____
|
| I suspect OP is mainly thinking of (1) and (2), where they
| get a phone call or letter and they say: "Sure! Here's a
| link to the video file."
|
| I would also guess OP might be okay with (3) where an
| officer came to their door and said "I need watch you copy
| time-range X-Y of your front door footage onto this USB
| stick I brought", or even "I need to take your entire SD
| card for a few months" if the footage seems very important.
|
| In contrast, I don't think OP is supporting the idea that
| police can get a warrant to rip the camera out of the wall
| and break down their door and seize all their electronics.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| In general, if there's a record of something which was captured
| in the course of ordinary business which is relevant as
| evidence in a court matter (such as the recording of your Ring
| camera), and parties to proceedings have good reason to believe
| you have this record, then they can generally get a subpoena
| issued to compel you to produce it for the court. This applies
| to both the prosecution and the defense (both criminal and
| civil).
|
| The protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure comes
| in the form of the fact the requesting party has to convince
| the court (usually the registry) that there is reasonable
| grounds before they will issue a subpoena.
|
| As an investigative matter (prior to any charges, court
| listings, and subpoenas), it is possible to get a search
| warrant including for evidence held by 3rd parties who aren't
| suspected of anything. Again, police don't have carte blanche.
| They need to convince a judicial officer of some sort that
| there is reasonable grounds before a warrant will be issued.
|
| There are ways to challenge a warrant/subpoena. Sometimes a
| successful challenge only serves to make the evidence
| inadmissible but doesn't prevent the search in the first place
| (aka "you can beat the ticket but you can't beat the ride).
|
| All that said, some judges / courts tend to practically be a
| rubber stamp for whatever warrant / subpoena the police want.
| Others actually do their job. It ain't perfect, but if you can
| think of a better system, I'd love to hear it.
| raincom wrote:
| Third-party doctrine is a legal way around the 4A: "The third-
| party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds
| that people who voluntarily give information to third parties--
| such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers
| (ISPs), and e-mail servers--have "no reasonable expectation of
| privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection
| allows the United States government to obtain information from
| third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise
| complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search
| and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search
| warrant."[1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| To me, it's a bug not a feature that precedent can just expand
| infinitely as new capabilities in the world grow.
|
| There's a lot of people saying that search warrants have always
| allowed intrusion & seizure. But the fact that all these devices
| (cars, cameras, phones) are now potentially interesting data-rich
| objects to be seized, mined for ever larger total information
| awareness by the state seems like a massive defect & flaw of the
| system to me.
|
| I dont want old laws + new technology to automatically result in
| the state's eye of sauron (palantir) getting to better observe
| us.
| moate wrote:
| The state's first goal is to protect the state's continued
| existence. Anything that can be seen as interfering with that
| can be labeled an enemy and relegated to subhuman/other/destroy
| on contact status. From there, state violence, and from there,
| nazis.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| By far the most critical aspects of the state maintaining
| itself is to have the faith of the people, as a just and
| right entity that doesn't deserve to be smashed, whose blood
| is good for more than renewinf the tree of liberty
|
| This ever expanding invasiveness delegitimizes the state.
| Physical security is a positive, only when the power itself
| is used respectably & virtuously. Pursuing enemies at all
| cost makes you a bad state, that can't be believed in. Some
| balance is required. Some limit to intrusion is necessary,
| and to me, this violates the sovereign rights of the
| citizens, to have so much of our lives repurposeable &
| cooptable by the state with ever increasing scope and haste.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Autonomous vehicles will not be your property.
| kepler1 wrote:
| Here in California (and generally in the US, as well as other
| places where the cost of enforcing laws seems to be growing too
| costly/unpalatable), we seem increasingly interested in
| documenting and retroactively following up the aftermath of
| crimes. Rather than preventing them when / before they're
| happening. I'm surprised the police even care to watch video
| afterwards.
|
| (aside from the serious crime stuff like in the article)
| aftbit wrote:
| Creepy stuff. Maybe we ought not to constantly record everything
| happening around us all the time.
| papichulo4 wrote:
| Seems like if it's technically possible, it will happen, and we
| can't stop technological progress. In fact, you and I are
| probably profiting from that progress. Hard to ask a guy to do
| something that goes against his paycheck. Even if we vote
| politically "correct," whomever that may be, what are you and I
| voting for with our wallets?
| Lammy wrote:
| > Seems like if it's technically possible, it will happen,
| and we can't stop technological progress.
|
| 'The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a
| disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the
| life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced"
| countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life
| unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities,
| have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third
| World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted
| severe damage on the natural world. The continued development
| of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly
| subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict
| greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to
| greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it
| may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced"
| countries.'
| eastbound wrote:
| I don't know. People have been living without reliable
| access to food and potable water, not even talking about
| sore deformations on their faces, for a thousand years. But
| somehow their lives were fulfilling?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Yeah, I don't see many of the people criticizing the
| Industrial Revolution opting into pre-industrial
| existences. I'm pretty minimalist, and I've grown up
| around the Amish and even they prefer to avail themselves
| of technology where they can. I think there's a fair
| amount of romanticizing about a pre-industrial lifestyle.
| This obviously isn't to argue that we should all live
| maximally consumerist lifestyles; I don't think that's
| true either.
| swayvil wrote:
| >sore deformations
|
| Is that what's referred to as a "wen"?
|
| (Onomatopoetic term, that. Think of how you'd talk with a
| golfball in your mouth)
| njtransit wrote:
| Do you really think life was fulfilling before the
| Industrial Revolution? Most men toiled, watched their
| children and wives die, before dying at a young age
| themselves. Where was the fulfillment, exactly? You're only
| able to contemplate that life could possibly _be_
| fulfilling because of the Industrial Revolution.
| yulker wrote:
| Gotta look past the agricultural revolution, not just
| shortly before industrial revolution
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| There was no art, poetry, craftsmanship, skill, talent,
| fame, friendship (or relationships of any kind), flavor,
| joy, celebration, or creativity before the Industrial
| Revolution. Gotcha.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Speak for yourself. My ancestors pre-industrial revolution
| were half starved tenant farmers making a subsistence
| living on too small plots of farmland in colonized Ireland,
| subject to random slaughter when the English changed their
| plans.
|
| Now, our extended family is prosperous in the US, Australia
| and Ireland. We're taller, healthier and mostly in
| professional or skilled trade jobs.
|
| The past is often seen through a sepia tinted idealized
| slant. The past was full of suffering and brutality. Even
| warfare was just as brutal - in ancient times, Caesar
| slaughtered 1-2% of the global population in Gaul. In the
| 17th century, marauding armies picked regions cleaned and
| left thousands to starve.
| deeptechdreamer wrote:
| War, disease, famine were the norm for eras past. For
| those who lived during those times, I reckon their level
| of perceived suffering was no more than ours today.
| Humans are tragically skilled at adapting to new
| standards and shifting the threshold of struggle. People
| today get frustrated over a delayed plane departure
| likely just as much as people in the past were over a
| storm delaying their caravan by a few days.
|
| As much of a proponent of technology as I am, I often
| reflect on whether we are truly bending the arc of
| suffering in a positive direction, or if it has remained
| far more constant than we'd like to believe.
| Iulioh wrote:
| Everyone is unsatisfied with what they have but some
| people are more right than others in the complaints they
| make.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >too small plots of farmland
|
| Small plots are _still_ a problem for most people . 'We'
| sort off worked around the small plots problem by having
| the industrial revolution come along and then made jobs
| available for those who had only small plots.
|
| Hypothetically, if every human had an equal part of
| earth, relatively fewer would have been in the pathetic
| state that you mentioned in the per-industrial era, and
| even less so in the post-industrialization era.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| Errr - not true. Pre Industrial Revolution you were either
| a serf or a lord. There were a few in the renaissance times
| who started getting an education and planting the seed of
| the Industrial Revolution. By and large your existence pre
| Industrial Revolution would have been at the mercy of your
| local lord.
|
| Yes, there are negatives to the Industrial Revolution we
| have to overcome. But it's a net positive for everyone.
|
| You're welcome to fantasize being someone's slave. I'm not.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Sounds like a unabomber quote?
| luma wrote:
| It's the introduction to the Unabomber manifesto.
| eric_h wrote:
| Indeed:
|
| https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/natio
| nal...
| FpUser wrote:
| >"we can't stop technological progress"
|
| I do not want to stop tech progress, but I do want to stop
| social regress. Give it another 20-30 years and we will have
| same shit problems with freedoms as China, Russia, insert
| your fav scapegoat here.
| Dibby053 wrote:
| If we had to vote everything with our wallets Tesla wouldn't
| exist in the first place. We would have $5,000 trucks made by
| Burmese war prisoners that can reach 200mph on full self
| drive, running on palm oil without a catalytic converter.
| loteck wrote:
| The incidental and systemic benefits of the recordings are
| exciting to people and celebrated with stories. The hazards of
| this constant "pollution" of data -- how it is slowly changing
| our society, our economy, our humanity -- is harder to quantify
| or build opposition to.
|
| It's a bit like climate change. Slow, invisible poison.
| deepsun wrote:
| s/poison/vitamin/ and you'll be happier.
| pjc50 wrote:
| I mean, yes, we'd like to replace poison with vitamins, but
| that requires some serious changes.
| skyyler wrote:
| Double plus good idea, fine chap!
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Law simply needs to internalize encryption. Your cameras are
| your property and only with consent of owner are they
| available to authorities.
|
| Public cameras should only be decrypted for evidence to
| support litigation of crimes, not for police to search for
| violay, because the current gigantic book of laws has an
| implicit assumption of a difficulty to enforce.
|
| If suddenly police could use AI to fully prosecute all
| violations of law then we have all the laws necessary for
| worse than totalitarian existence.
|
| Every mile you drove in a car will be 10 violations of law.
| Laugh loud? Violation disturbance of peace. Stand looking at
| your email too long? Loitering. Cross a park? Dozens of
| environmental violations.
| lupire wrote:
| This is already in the US Constitution. 4th Amendment.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > and celebrated with stories.
|
| Are you sure those are organic?
| xyst wrote:
| NSA has been collecting domestic and foreign data for a long
| time now. There's even a dedicated data warehouse/data center
| in Utah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center)
| tptacek wrote:
| Why? Bodycams are an unalloyed good, and have deeper privacy
| implications.
| throwup238 wrote:
| With proper checks and balances in a civilian government,
| sure. The problem is when private companies help police
| departments do a runaround constitutional protections. Users
| have no sovereignty over their data (so to speak).
| tptacek wrote:
| To which Constitutional protections are you referring?
| lupire wrote:
| The 4th Amendment
| tptacek wrote:
| What does the 4th Amendment have to say about this? The
| guiding philosophy at the time 4A was framed is "the
| public is entitled to every man's evidence".
| thfuran wrote:
| Probably the fourth amendment.
| samstave wrote:
| Can I FOIA Yopur CarCam?
|
| I Should be able to FOIA-LiveStream #OfficerBadge_Num
|
| For #1  Rights? Maybe #2
|
| #If Warrant granted, then enable FOIA-Cam_Footage = 1
| jmspring wrote:
| This is a hardone for me. In the family we have - 2016 Tacoma,
| 2015 Rav4, 2016 Mini, 2019 Sprinter RV. None have driver
| assist, backup cameras only, etc. I've been thinking about
| dashcams, but only ones where I know what will be published
| where (IE, not the cloud), so I have a personal record for
| instance if the kid has an issue in the Mini.
|
| No plans to upgrade or get new vehicles unless a dire need. For
| instance if Sprinter or Tacoma die, drive the not-dead one.
| (Sprinter is technially an RV, but used for business).
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Is there any tangible reason that would actually weight enough
| to justify not _actively wanting_ to provide basically free
| resources in help of uncovering (and in effect: preventing) a
| violent crime?
|
| Because, if not, this is about as "creepy" as those nerdy guys
| sitting in their bedrooms and basements, tinkering with their
| silly computers all day, meaning: Non-conformist and something
| you might just not be ready to think about straight.
| krona wrote:
| Perhaps because being at the scene of a crime makes you a
| potential suspect, and in an age of boundless incompetence,
| I'd rather not take that chance.
| bartonfink wrote:
| Police incompetence and overreach.
| 14 wrote:
| yes there is a valid reason to be opposed to this. Yes
| everyone one wants to stop violent crimes and murders and
| that is not a bad thing. But as history has shown time and
| time again if the people in power decide to become a tyrant
| and start to abuse the technology then we have a problem.
| Imagine if this was around 60 years ago. You go into a bar.
| Some cars have driven past the bar right as you entered a few
| weeks past. Now police realize this is actually a secret gay
| bar. They take all cars whose gps shows they passed the bar
| and take their footage. You are seen on camera entering a gay
| bar and now you are on a list and they start to harass you
| and question you. Seems like an unlikely situation that is
| far fetched but I like to remind people it was only in 1965
| that the last person was arrested in Canada for
| homosexuality. He was even declared a dangerous sex offender.
| So no we don't want cameras recording every second of our
| lives. Things that may be legal today might not be tomorrow
| so we should have privacy from constant surveillance.
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/everett-klippert-
| lgbt-a...
| mullingitover wrote:
| A large group of people will look at these stories of technology
| being used to get the worst people off the street and say "This
| is creepy stuff," and a lot of that same group will listen to
| politicians telling them "the solution to gun violence is for
| everyone to have guns" and nod thoughtfully in agreement.
| userbinator wrote:
| Guns can't be used for surveillance.
| perching_aix wrote:
| mount a camera on them
| mullingitover wrote:
| A person who believes they'll be caught and face consequences
| for committing crimes is strongly affected by knowing there
| is heavy surveillance of their criminal activities. They're
| less likely to be deterred just knowing that a lot of other
| people will randomly have guns, in fact that makes them more
| likely to _also_ have a gun and to shoot first (e.g.: that
| actor who was gunned down confronting someone who was
| stealing a catalytic converter).
| moate wrote:
| Sure? But some people also don't care about either and others
| people think too much focus is on preventing effects (crime)
| and not on addressing cause (material conditions) and plenty of
| pro-fascists quote 1984 to support policy that would have made
| Orwell want to shoot them in the head.
|
| People be crazy.
| xyst wrote:
| Surveillance tech masquerading as "self driving vehicles". Those
| Waymo vehicles are prime for this.
| thunder-blue-3 wrote:
| Will they though? Crime enforcement in the bay area is a joke -
| from alameda county into SF. I'm so happy to have moved out and
| into a state with actual community engagement and accountability.
| loteck wrote:
| Where'd you move to?
| thunder-blue-3 wrote:
| Connecticut - I've never felt safer walking around at 3 am
| and I've made more friends in the last 2 months (without
| trying) than I probably have in the last 6 years of living in
| the bay area.
| hereme888 wrote:
| The stories I hear from family living in the area... basically
| unless you're actively being assaulted, cops just don't show
| up. Unheard of in "normal" parts of the country.
|
| My brother once had his vehicle stolen, he traced it, found it,
| and because the police wasn't motivated to show up, he acted
| over the phone as if he were about to get into a life/death
| confrontation with the thief. Then they sent someone.
| thunder-blue-3 wrote:
| My ex's father was held up near his home with a knife - OPD
| never came after the initial call was filed.
| reillys wrote:
| If I or somebody else was the victim of a crime I would 100%
| support using every available source of information to solve that
| crime. I think we need adequate controls sure, but mostly we need
| to increase trust in government and police forces so we know we
| can trust the relevant people with our data.
|
| There is epic fear in the US about the government. That is the
| actual problem. Now the US gov is a shady piece of shit, so a lot
| of that is well founded, but that is the root of the problem.
| Solve that problem and actually trust the people who are supposed
| to be responsible and in charge to do the right thing and this
| data problem stops becoming as much of an issue. And no, building
| some kind of philosophical zero trust system is not going to
| solve anything, it is a prison you'll end up living in.
|
| Encourage transparency in Police forces and Government with
| strong legislation and strong support for whistleblowers and
| punishment of infractions and you have yourself a system that
| people can begin to trust.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| It's not just the police. How could such a corrupt police exist
| without corrupt superiors higher up in the government? Fear of
| governments is justified, they're the most powerful entity in
| our world. They can get away with murder.
|
| The US is not Iceland, a simple fix that would just make people
| trust the police is impossible. Also as an aside, the police
| isn't your only problem. Tesla, Google & co are paving the way
| normalizing these mobile surveillance units. We'll have
| millions of them driving around everywhere with HD cameras,
| microphones, in some cases even LiDAR and radar. Recording
| constantly. Of course there's a bit of an issue if you are not
| a fan of mass surveillance. Even if corporations are the only
| ones in charge of that data. I know for example that the Tesla
| video feed can be accessed online, because owners can remotely
| view it with their app. And if they can do this, so can others
| in theory. All you need is a bug or Tesla servers getting
| hacked.
| mvc wrote:
| So funny to watch the US competing with China to be the most
| authoritarian state.
| akimbostrawman wrote:
| the driving panopticon is being used to spy. shocking
| rd wrote:
| https://archive.is/zzMAr
| pdar4123 wrote:
| I have perhaps unpopular additional suggestion. If you break any
| traffic laws your tesla should automatically report u to the
| police. Shouldn't a car w AI capabilities be committed to
| responsible, ethical, safe, law abiding behavior ? I'm tired of
| bay area Teslas not signaling, cutting me off, and near killing
| me while I'm walking or on my bike.
| spacephysics wrote:
| Nah that gets to a police state mighty fast.
|
| It works if the people in power align with your values, but the
| moment it doesn't it becomes a problem
| simon_acca wrote:
| They have this on airliners now
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_operations_quality_as...
| rcpt wrote:
| So we're finally getting speed cameras?
| harmmonica wrote:
| As a somewhat regular user of Waymo, these types of conversations
| seem like they're going to be more and more in the (sorry!)
| rearview mirror because we won't own the car nor the cameras that
| are recording the world as we "drive" around.
|
| That's not to say that we should give up fighting for some level
| of privacy even when we don't own the cars, but seems more likely
| that legislation would be passed that forces the vehicle
| owners/operators (Alphabet in the Waymo case) to blur peoples'
| faces. Then of course the state (police/gov/etc.) will clamor for
| a backdoor key that will unlock the blurred faces/bodies if a
| crime is suspected to have occurred. Speaking of, I wonder if
| Waymo already does blur people when they capture them through
| Waymo rides? I can't seem to find mention of it online.
|
| This commentary assumes self-driving cars are here to stay and
| become the de facto way we drive instead of driving ourselves.
| Still not sure how their adoption plays out over time because, at
| least in the US, people will fight against mandates to use self-
| driving cars because it compromises their freedom (note that the
| freedom crowd (no judgment) will be saying that, at first,
| because they will consider it their right to drive themselves,
| but once the privacy implications are clear there will be full-on
| (figurative?) wars fought over self-driving). Guessing a
| politician, in Texas or another red state, will sooner than later
| enshrine the right-to-drive-oneself into the state constitution.
| threecheese wrote:
| I am hoping for an urban camouflage fashion revolution as a
| response to more pervasive monitoring:
| https://www.axios.com/2019/09/07/fooling-facial-recognition-...
|
| Public access to object recognition models may be important.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > these types of conversations seem like they're going to be
| more and more in the (sorry!) rearview mirror because we won't
| own the car nor the cameras that are recording the world as we
| "drive" around.
|
| Perhaps in the urban setting but the majority of this country
| is not contained within cities. Even then are you planning on
| banning motorcycles and RVs?
|
| > because they will consider it their right to drive themselves
|
| Until a law is passed otherwise they are absolutely correct.
|
| > the right-to-drive-oneself into the state constitution.
|
| I doubt it. The real fight is likely to be whether we continue
| using mixed vehicle and pedestrian infrastructure or if we
| force pedestrians off the roadway entirely. Then we'll have a
| "right to walk" constitutional crisis.
| PeterisP wrote:
| > Perhaps in the urban setting but the majority of this
| country is not contained within cities.
|
| 83% of USA population live in urban areas, and that
| proportion is still steadily growing. The same trends apply
| everywhere else in the world as well.
| sseagull wrote:
| According to the 2020 US Census, about 80% live in an urban
| area. However, the definition is not exactly what people
| think of when you say "urban".
|
| In 2020, the census lists 2,611 urban areas, including
| areas with a few thousand people.
|
| https://www.census.gov/programs-
| surveys/geography/guidance/g...
|
| Shouldn't be too hard to break this down with a more
| colloquial definition (say, areas over 500k or 750k
| people). I'm just not at a real computer :)
| rblatz wrote:
| I think this plays out where it becomes a luxury to drive
| oneself. Over the next 10-15 years it looks like self driving
| will continue to advance and will likely become safer than the
| alternative.
|
| Once that happens insurance companies will start charging more
| for people that drive themselves compared to people that let
| the car drive.
|
| I can see some states outlawing that practice. Then it's left
| to see who is still underwriting insurance in those states.
| forinti wrote:
| Not so bad if my car can drop me off at work and, go to court,
| and then pick me up at the end of the day to go home.
| tiziano88 wrote:
| "You have ad-blocker turned on" despite that being completely
| untrue.
| btilly wrote:
| I'm sorry, but what happened to the 4th Amendment? Your car was
| parked in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though you
| followed all rules, we're taking it.
|
| Not without a judge.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-31 23:00 UTC)