4 ms·

I met a guy who said he lived in Shenzhen a while, and said that J-walking would get you an automatic deduction from your wechat pay account, assuming you were

I met a guy who said he lived in Shenzhen a while, and said that J-walking would get you an automatic deduction from your wechat pay account, assuming you were in front of a camera.

sho 7y ago
Let me turn that around for you. Would you like it if people who turned or changed lanes without indicating were reliably and automatically fined? Because I sure would. The law is the law. If it's a good law, then its efficient, universal, automatic enforcement should be a good thing. If not - then it's the law that needs to be changed. You're complaining about the enforcement - but what you actually don't like is the law itself. Hell, maybe efficient and automatic enforcement will force us to confront bad laws, rather than relying on discretion at the enforcement stage to water them down tolerably. Better they not be on the books at all.
- baby 7y ago
  I'd like it if cars would take less space, and would give the right of way to pedestrians jay walking anywhere. Fuck cars.
- lame88 7y ago
  No I would not like that automatic fine. In theory okay, but in reality it's foolish to separate enforcement from what is being enforced. Moxie explained this well. In short, good luck changing that law. https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/ https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
  - rahimnathwani 7y ago
    There is a position between yours and sho's. Sure, if every federal crime were enforced through automatic fines, this could be a mess due to the complexity of the law. But what's your objection to a fine for changing lanes without indicating?
    - lame88 7y ago
      I had no objection to that fine. I had an objection to the an automatic mechanism to do it, or to perfectly enforce any law, no matter how trivial, Simply because these kinds of things don't happen in a vacuum; the mechanisms built toward these ends will not be limited to being used toward that one end. For example maybe there's cameras everywhere to enforce this law. But then there's cameras everywhere. I highly recommend that article I linked if you have not read. Edit 1: I realized what you meant with your question so disregard the first sentence. Edit 2: Also, it's worth stating that it follows that these concerns are completely independent of the complexity of the law.
      - rahimnathwani 7y ago
        What if someone were to devise a mechanism to detect and prosecute people changing lanes without indicating, with the following properties? - perfect accuracy (no FP; no FN) - automated enforcement via a fine, without knowing the identity of the perpetrator (just assume it's possible; I know it's hard) - no potential for the device or underlying technology to be used or repurposed for any other form of surveillance or enforcement Would such a system (and automated enforcement) be OK?
        arpa 7y ago
        No. It would only be ok if we rework the whole idea of law, base it not in tradition, but perfect rationality and objectiveness. Consider this: i change lanes at 2 a.m. on an empty road. There's no objective need to signal. I get fined for not signalling. I do 50 in a 30 zone (because there's a school nearby) at the same time. I get fined even though there's no objective reason for it. And these are simple examples, if we get to complex cases of, let's say, self defense, it opens up a major can of worms.
        rahimnathwani 7y ago
        In your first example, you could just change your behaviour to signal even when you think no one is around (as I do). Your second example (speeding) doesn't incur a fine because in this hypothetical example the automated enforcement is only used for signalling violations. For your third example (self defence), maybe you are forced to change lanes without signalling. How often? Once per year? What if the fine were $2, and people like you had to pay it once per year, but people who persistently refuse to signal end up paying 1000s of $2 fines per year? Seems like a reasonable trade-off.
  - sho 7y ago
    I totally agree with the article you linked? Bad, overreaching laws, discretionally enforced, are a very bad thing and open the door to huge abuses of power? You sound like you think you're arguing with me but I agree!
- whytaka 7y ago
  I doubt GP is complaining about the law itself. The question is always more about humans, systems, corruption, and power. Omnipresent surveillance is incredibly powerful, frighteningly so. And we all know human systems are corrupted over time. The question is, can an all powerful corrupt human system be overturned?

I met a guy who said he lived in Shenzhen a while, and said that J-walking would get you an automatic deduction from your wechat pay account, assuming you were in front of a camera.

sho 7y ago

Let me turn that around for you. Would you like it if people who turned or changed lanes without indicating were reliably and automatically fined? Because I sure would. The law is the law. If it's a good law, then its efficient, universal, automatic enforcement should be a good thing. If not - then it's the law that needs to be changed. You're complaining about the enforcement - but what you actually don't like is the law itself. Hell, maybe efficient and automatic enforcement will force us to confront bad laws, rather than relying on discretion at the enforcement stage to water them down tolerably. Better they not be on the books at all.

baby 7y ago
I'd like it if cars would take less space, and would give the right of way to pedestrians jay walking anywhere. Fuck cars.
lame88 7y ago
No I would not like that automatic fine. In theory okay, but in reality it's foolish to separate enforcement from what is being enforced. Moxie explained this well. In short, good luck changing that law. https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/ https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  There is a position between yours and sho's. Sure, if every federal crime were enforced through automatic fines, this could be a mess due to the complexity of the law. But what's your objection to a fine for changing lanes without indicating?
  - lame88 7y ago
    I had no objection to that fine. I had an objection to the an automatic mechanism to do it, or to perfectly enforce any law, no matter how trivial, Simply because these kinds of things don't happen in a vacuum; the mechanisms built toward these ends will not be limited to being used toward that one end. For example maybe there's cameras everywhere to enforce this law. But then there's cameras everywhere. I highly recommend that article I linked if you have not read. Edit 1: I realized what you meant with your question so disregard the first sentence. Edit 2: Also, it's worth stating that it follows that these concerns are completely independent of the complexity of the law.
    - rahimnathwani 7y ago
      What if someone were to devise a mechanism to detect and prosecute people changing lanes without indicating, with the following properties? - perfect accuracy (no FP; no FN) - automated enforcement via a fine, without knowing the identity of the perpetrator (just assume it's possible; I know it's hard) - no potential for the device or underlying technology to be used or repurposed for any other form of surveillance or enforcement Would such a system (and automated enforcement) be OK?
      - arpa 7y ago
        No. It would only be ok if we rework the whole idea of law, base it not in tradition, but perfect rationality and objectiveness. Consider this: i change lanes at 2 a.m. on an empty road. There's no objective need to signal. I get fined for not signalling. I do 50 in a 30 zone (because there's a school nearby) at the same time. I get fined even though there's no objective reason for it. And these are simple examples, if we get to complex cases of, let's say, self defense, it opens up a major can of worms.
        rahimnathwani 7y ago
        In your first example, you could just change your behaviour to signal even when you think no one is around (as I do). Your second example (speeding) doesn't incur a fine because in this hypothetical example the automated enforcement is only used for signalling violations. For your third example (self defence), maybe you are forced to change lanes without signalling. How often? Once per year? What if the fine were $2, and people like you had to pay it once per year, but people who persistently refuse to signal end up paying 1000s of $2 fines per year? Seems like a reasonable trade-off.
- sho 7y ago
  I totally agree with the article you linked? Bad, overreaching laws, discretionally enforced, are a very bad thing and open the door to huge abuses of power? You sound like you think you're arguing with me but I agree!
whytaka 7y ago
I doubt GP is complaining about the law itself. The question is always more about humans, systems, corruption, and power. Omnipresent surveillance is incredibly powerful, frighteningly so. And we all know human systems are corrupted over time. The question is, can an all powerful corrupt human system be overturned?