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.

  • HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    “Law enforcement should be conducted specifically in the way that I imagine, not in the way that people vote for.”

    - Someone speaking unironically, believe it or not.

    • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      ACAB. This isn’t the place to try to garner sympathy for your threats against society from the ruling class, traitor.

      • HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m just glad the Lemmy devs didn’t set a maximum block limit so I don’t have to pick and choose which bad-faith attackers like yourself I block.

    • Hypnotoad_@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Alternate viewpoint, it’s not about doing it a specific person’s “way” but more about not doing it the objectively stupid way.

      • HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        One person’s opinion is another person’s “objectively stupid.”

        I have yet to see a reasonable proposition on how to do traffic enforcement that seems to sit right with the vast majority of people.

        My point in making the above joke(s) is that this is the alternative that many people cried out for. It feels like goal-post moving when every way to enforce the law is “but not this way, a different way.”

        My guess at the common denominator that cannot possibly be objectively confirmed is that people simply don’t want to be met with consequences for breaking the law, and no matter how that’s done it will be rejected.

        In other words, every way to enforce traffic has downsides - every single one. This is the one that does not involve cops. As you see, this is the downside. It’s laughably easy to “THIS IS BAD” at it while proposing no alternatives, and very amusing when an alternative (like this one) is eventually picked apart for being “objectively stupid” when its downsides inevitably crop up.