this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
269 points (98.2% liked)
Mildly Interesting
20090 readers
1281 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well I dislike them mainly because they further enable scalable mass surveillance. There should be more barriers to having records of where everyone is. As for automated enforcement, the way it works is often a blatant scam. I once had a commute where I passed by an intersection that ticketed people turning left, the amount of time it allowed was noticeably shorter than normal, and you could see the flash indicating they were ticketing someone basically every time the light changed, for multiple cars, because it activated if you were in the intersection at all after the light turned red. There was always a long line to turn left at that intersection. I mostly avoided getting ticketed but I did get one once, it was through a private company and I just ignored it and nothing happened. I really think most of those get set up because of corrupt relationships between people in government and the people running those companies that handle the tickets.
That issue is not really the problem of the camera though. That's like saying you don't like running water because people have drowned in water before. If the cameras are being misused then that is a political issue.
In my city, the police department operates the cameras and they will send at least one warning before you get a fine unless the violation is very egregious (e.g. double the speed limit in a school zone)
Running water is a technology that tends to solve bigger problems than it causes. You can always count on politics to break sometimes, but when it happens with running water, even if people are getting sick because of lead pipes and sewage is backing up into peoples homes because of organizational dysfunction (happened to me, the city just failed to connect the pipes from my apartment to the sewer and pretended they had), it's still better than the public health catastrophe that is an absence of running water.
On the other hand, for the entire class of technology where the benefit is more automation of law enforcement, I'd argue it's completely the other way around; huge inherent political risk, minimal potential improvement.
Can't say I agree. This is anecdotal but the council installed some camera-like devices on one of the main roads in my city and people got scared of them and slowed down as a result. I don't think the cameras are actually turned on and issuing fines as I don't know any people who have gotten a fine from them, but their presence scares people into safer driving.
Automated law enforcement in fields where guilt can be obviously and objectively determined (resist the urge to make a fallacious slippery slope argument) is, on average, a good thing. People's tendency to bad behaviour is strictly because they think they won't get caught. Telling people there's a $500 fine for speeding means nothing because they know the chance of getting caught is in the neighbourhood of 1 in 10,000. Most people speed every day on every road they drive on but they get maybe 1 ticket every other year. But if they know that speeding on one particular road will result in a 90% chance of getting a $50 fine, they're not going to speed on that road. That's why the cameras are usually painted bright orange or white—to get people to see them and think "oh shit, I don't want a ticket; I'd better slow down".
As long as we have democratic control over our own local governments and strong privacy laws regarding how that data can be used, I do not view misuse of automated number plate recognition systems as a serious threat. In fact, I think it's probably a net bonus. There's a show called Police Interceptors which follows British police and it's absolutely shocking how many stolen cars they recover because someone drove it past an automated number plate recognition camera and it got flagged.
In practice this just isn't going to work, because the whole infrastructure is aligned against effective privacy such that you can't just pass a simple law to ensure it. What I've heard from someone working in local government is that right now there is an overwhelming push to move all computer systems to the cloud (private company servers and software), and most of them are there already, which means that the actual people, practices, and physical hardware managing data are at multiple levels of remove from democratic scrutiny and influence. Also consider the high profile recent events regarding collection and misuse of existing data by the US federal government regardless of laws prohibiting it. None of the information collected and stored by the government (or corporations for that matter) is safe, and the task of making it safe becomes more impractical all the time.
Of course these are also problems that would be good to address, but I think you can't count on them being resolved because they probably will not be. Which isn't to say good laws on what data isn't safe to be collected to begin with, or what decisions affecting people's lives aren't safe to be made by computers, are likely either, but that at least seems like a more realistic approach to me than trying to build a Panopticon that somehow doesn't get abused.