A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.
Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.
Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.
Well, I don’t think you have to threaten people to make them behave. I think most people are decent and responsible, and can be convinced if they understand the dangers. I’m not convinced threatening the ones who couldn’t be convinced will actually be helpful. I am fairly hostile to anyone threatening me even to agreeable ends. Regardless of whether I’m right about all that, it kinda misses the point: the means are unacceptable. These systems will creep and overstep while empowering stalkers and tyrants at multiple level of government. They will antagonize both people who’ve done nothing wrong and those who have but would prefer to quietly reform.
It doesn’t really matter how just your ends are when your means enable horrific outcomes.
I know of at least 1 study on human behaviour, where an image of an eye was added to a bathroom and increased the number of people who washed their hands after using the facilities, that suggests people do in fact need the “threat” of feeling they’re being watched to behave responsibly.
Ultimately, when you’re in control of something with the potential destructiveness of a car, you do need to be monitored for everyone’s safety. The only way to have a society without that level of monitoring is to have one without general access to cars.
You realize people can buy guns, yeah? Primitive guns can be made with shockingly little resources. The only way to protect society from guns is to monitor everyone all the time in all scenarios – full surveillance state, and every thing that comes with it. If your stance is anything to prevent any risks at any costs, we disagree about really fundamental aspects of life.
Are cars dangerous? Sure, but they’re not weapons. I’m even not convinced banning weapons - much less mass surveillance against weapons - is a particularly wise idea with rising authoritarianism. Maybe you do draw a line somewhere and accept some level of risks, but if you do it’s far beyond anything I’d consider reasonable.
Yeah you shouldn’t have guns either, you don’t even use them for what you’re meant to.
Cars might not be weapons, but mistakes made or malfunctions that happen while controlling them can cause as much if not far more damage than many weapons, even before including distractions like phones. The options are surveillance or getting rid of cars.
Tolerate the risk and lower it by educating people and moving cultural norms. If you’re not willing to put in the work to build broad societal consensus, you’re going to live in a society that is fundamentally oppressive and undemocratic. That should be obvious. If that’s what you want, well good news for you we’re well on our way.