4 ms·

I wonder how this all relates to license plate readers. As a frequent cyclist/pedestrian, I've felt for some time that a low, consistently-applied automatic fin

I wonder how this all relates to license plate readers. As a frequent cyclist/pedestrian, I've felt for some time that a low, consistently-applied automatic fine would go a long ways toward eliminating traffic behaviours which are mostly low-incident at present because vulnerable road users have trained themselves into hyper-defensiveness and basically know to jump out of the way. To some extent, this is even in the official messaging, with campaigns about how road safety is a "shared responsibility" and so on. Basically, things like speeding in neighbourhoods, entering a crosswalk before all peds are off the roadway, running red lights and stop signs, right turn on red without coming to a full stop first, etc. Currently in my city these things are all pretty much completely unenforced— the fines are in the hundreds of dollars are and only applied when someone is actually hit. This breeds a driver mentality of "well, it doesn't matter what I do as long as I don't hit anyone" which in turn makes the roads a less safe place to be for everyone. The fines are where they are partly as a deterrent, but also because the cost of enforcement is so astronomical when it requires multiple personnel on a special operation. I feel that if the fine was in the $10-30 range, but it was applied consistently on every single offense, drivers would quickly train themselves out of doing these things. (This is the swift-certain-fair philosophy, see: https://nnscommunities.org/strategies/swift-certain-fair/ https://nnscommunities.org/strategies/swift-certain-fair/) Anyhow, I know that plate != driver, and there's a bunch of existing case law around protecting drivers' "right" to get away with endangering themselves and others by disregarding traffic rules. But given how much of a step beyond plate-recognition a facial-recognition system would be, I'm interested to speculate if there might be more of an appetite for this kind of thing down the road.

eplanit 6y ago
Do you think such comprehensive enforcement would be limited to traffic violations? While you might not want it, you're advocating for total surveillance, and severe authoritarianism.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  I think a lot of it depends on the culture and oversight around it. For example, most of the developed world has gun laws that many Americans consider to be a stepping stone to authoritarianism, and it seems to be working out okay so far. If police weren't already an established institution, it's easy to imagine opposing setting them up with an argument similar to this ("we're really just going to put a bunch of armed people on the street with the authority to detain anyone for any reason? Isn't this authoritarianism?"). In any case, the wheels are already in motion for this to happen, so I suppose we'll find out soon enough where it leads to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera#Multipurpose_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera#Mul...
  - cal5k 6y ago
    The thing about firearms is that, unless you're actively hunting, you don't need them - until you do. You don't need them until there's a home invasion. You don't need them until someone tries to rob or kidnap you or a member of your family. You don't need them until you are, like in Venezuela or the Czech Republic historically, in opposition to a dictatorial government. There is a real reason that every single authoritarian government in history has disarmed its populace. Vigilance against authoritarianism is the same thing, because authoritarianism rarely happens over night. It takes years, sometimes decades. And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness.
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      > You don't need them until there's a home invasion. I would argue that this also is a uniquely American perspective— for me (an urban Canadian), the thought of starting a firefight with an intruder is horrifying, especially once the possibility of accidentally firing on a child or pet is accounted for. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the numbers around what "gun in house" means for suicide and domestic disputes (even if I know I'll always be level-headed, what about down the road when my kids are teenagers and have friends over, etc etc). Obviously, part of the guns-make-us-safer story is that criminals don't know which houses have them and which don't, and as a passive effect that's difficult to really study. But for a lot of us on the outside of this mentality, it's hard to escape the feeling that the safety provided by a gun is kind of like the safety provided by driving an SUV— mostly illusory, and comes at significant costs both to self and others. > And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness. I would argue that this is a distraction— that level of surveillance already exists, but it's away from public scrutiny and is managed by Facebook and Google. The clear and current authoritarianism threat in the US is the 106 house Republicans who supported Trump's absurd Texas lawsuit, that the leaders of one of the two major parties are unwilling to clearly speak with one voice to shut this nonsense down. And I'd be happy to be mistaken on this, but my impression is that gun owner clubs are mostly on Trump's side— those who are talking about taking to streets wouldn't be doing so to ensure a peaceful transition of power, they'd be doing so because they believe conspiracy theories about a stolen election.
Shivetya 6y ago
I remember the TV series SeaView or such where license plate readers were on highways and other roads and would fine you for speeding, deducting it automatically from your Social Security account. The issue of course with your suggestion is these types of fines are highly regressive as it effectively allows the well off to break the law at will. Percentage of wealth or income type fines would never float as you would end up making a whole new process where the police would only target those who they think will have the biggest payoff. Let alone it would require way too much of an invasion in privacy The issue of course is how does such a system know who is driving without also combining facial recognition?
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  > ... these types of fines are highly regressive as it effectively allows the well off to break the law at will. There will probably always be a segment of the population which can afford to buy their way out of trouble, but that's already the current state of affairs. I don't think it would have to be a requirement for getting this off the ground, but if down the road it was found that a lot of people were treating the fines as pay-to-play, you could have them escalate. It would be easy to do something like the toilet-tank model where you get X number of base-fee offenses per time period, and then the price increases significantly. Lots of parking regimes do this kind of thing to discourage people from treating the fine as a fee. (And the idea with the "swift" part of the philosophy is that you don't have to wait until the end of the month to get an itemized list of offenses— it texts you or something right away, so you get that immediate feedback about what you did and what the penalty was.) > The issue of course is how does such a system know who is driving without also combining facial recognition? Some existing systems have a camera positioned such that it can read the plate and also snap a picture of the driver through the windshield, so your ticket comes with a picture. In other places, the law has been amended so that the the person to whom the vehicle is licensed is liable for automated fines associated with it regardless of who is driving— Toronto started rolling out speed cams under that framework just this past summer (it's fines only, no demerits, so there should be no insurance impact).
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > Percentage of wealth or income type fines would never float as you would end up making a whole new process where the police would only target those who they think will have the biggest payoff. Let alone it would require way too much of an invasion in privacy It's both possible, and already in place in some countries. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland... Turns out basing it on income isn't much of an invasion of privacy because the government already has that. Even in the US we submit an annual "here's how much I made" document to the feds.
erentz 6y ago
Given how much this behavior can vary from region to region, I think a lot of this behavior can be driven by culture, road design, and how drivers learn to drive. It may be easier to address it through those channels.
bigbubba 6y ago
It's easy to say "This tech is dangerous and shouldn't be used.... except in this one scenario which coincidentally is a personal pet interest of mine." Cyclists want to use it against drivers, I'm sure shop owners want to use it against robbers, and doubtlessly paranoid parents want to use it against child nappers. Why should exceptions to a ban be carved out for anybody's pet interest?
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  I think this line of reasoning is dependent on your perspective. The current reality is that most places in the world have loads of private- and publicly-controlled/owned cameras observing public spaces for various reasons, and these cameras are often called upon to assist with apprehending and punishing wrongdoers. So is it me asking for an exemption which would help law enforcement protect me and my family as we get around on foot or by bike? Or is it the drivers asking for an ongoing exemption from being asked to actually follow the laws which are supposed to apply to them?
- ErikBjare 6y ago
  A major difference is that robbers and child nappers don't have license plates which can easily be read for automated and fair enforcement.

eplanit 6y ago

Do you think such comprehensive enforcement would be limited to traffic violations? While you might not want it, you're advocating for total surveillance, and severe authoritarianism.

mikepurvis 6y ago
I think a lot of it depends on the culture and oversight around it. For example, most of the developed world has gun laws that many Americans consider to be a stepping stone to authoritarianism, and it seems to be working out okay so far. If police weren't already an established institution, it's easy to imagine opposing setting them up with an argument similar to this ("we're really just going to put a bunch of armed people on the street with the authority to detain anyone for any reason? Isn't this authoritarianism?"). In any case, the wheels are already in motion for this to happen, so I suppose we'll find out soon enough where it leads to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera#Multipurpose_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera#Mul...
- cal5k 6y ago
  The thing about firearms is that, unless you're actively hunting, you don't need them - until you do. You don't need them until there's a home invasion. You don't need them until someone tries to rob or kidnap you or a member of your family. You don't need them until you are, like in Venezuela or the Czech Republic historically, in opposition to a dictatorial government. There is a real reason that every single authoritarian government in history has disarmed its populace. Vigilance against authoritarianism is the same thing, because authoritarianism rarely happens over night. It takes years, sometimes decades. And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    > You don't need them until there's a home invasion. I would argue that this also is a uniquely American perspective— for me (an urban Canadian), the thought of starting a firefight with an intruder is horrifying, especially once the possibility of accidentally firing on a child or pet is accounted for. I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the numbers around what "gun in house" means for suicide and domestic disputes (even if I know I'll always be level-headed, what about down the road when my kids are teenagers and have friends over, etc etc). Obviously, part of the guns-make-us-safer story is that criminals don't know which houses have them and which don't, and as a passive effect that's difficult to really study. But for a lot of us on the outside of this mentality, it's hard to escape the feeling that the safety provided by a gun is kind of like the safety provided by driving an SUV— mostly illusory, and comes at significant costs both to self and others. > And if you've built up a network of cameras powered by facial recognition on every street corner, you've now built the apparatus for an authoritarian-leaning government to harness. I would argue that this is a distraction— that level of surveillance already exists, but it's away from public scrutiny and is managed by Facebook and Google. The clear and current authoritarianism threat in the US is the 106 house Republicans who supported Trump's absurd Texas lawsuit, that the leaders of one of the two major parties are unwilling to clearly speak with one voice to shut this nonsense down. And I'd be happy to be mistaken on this, but my impression is that gun owner clubs are mostly on Trump's side— those who are talking about taking to streets wouldn't be doing so to ensure a peaceful transition of power, they'd be doing so because they believe conspiracy theories about a stolen election.

Shivetya 6y ago

I remember the TV series SeaView or such where license plate readers were on highways and other roads and would fine you for speeding, deducting it automatically from your Social Security account. The issue of course with your suggestion is these types of fines are highly regressive as it effectively allows the well off to break the law at will. Percentage of wealth or income type fines would never float as you would end up making a whole new process where the police would only target those who they think will have the biggest payoff. Let alone it would require way too much of an invasion in privacy The issue of course is how does such a system know who is driving without also combining facial recognition?

mikepurvis 6y ago
> ... these types of fines are highly regressive as it effectively allows the well off to break the law at will. There will probably always be a segment of the population which can afford to buy their way out of trouble, but that's already the current state of affairs. I don't think it would have to be a requirement for getting this off the ground, but if down the road it was found that a lot of people were treating the fines as pay-to-play, you could have them escalate. It would be easy to do something like the toilet-tank model where you get X number of base-fee offenses per time period, and then the price increases significantly. Lots of parking regimes do this kind of thing to discourage people from treating the fine as a fee. (And the idea with the "swift" part of the philosophy is that you don't have to wait until the end of the month to get an itemized list of offenses— it texts you or something right away, so you get that immediate feedback about what you did and what the penalty was.) > The issue of course is how does such a system know who is driving without also combining facial recognition? Some existing systems have a camera positioned such that it can read the plate and also snap a picture of the driver through the windshield, so your ticket comes with a picture. In other places, the law has been amended so that the the person to whom the vehicle is licensed is liable for automated fines associated with it regardless of who is driving— Toronto started rolling out speed cams under that framework just this past summer (it's fines only, no demerits, so there should be no insurance impact).
ceejayoz 6y ago
> Percentage of wealth or income type fines would never float as you would end up making a whole new process where the police would only target those who they think will have the biggest payoff. Let alone it would require way too much of an invasion in privacy It's both possible, and already in place in some countries. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland... Turns out basing it on income isn't much of an invasion of privacy because the government already has that. Even in the US we submit an annual "here's how much I made" document to the feds.

erentz 6y ago

Given how much this behavior can vary from region to region, I think a lot of this behavior can be driven by culture, road design, and how drivers learn to drive. It may be easier to address it through those channels.

bigbubba 6y ago

It's easy to say "This tech is dangerous and shouldn't be used.... except in this one scenario which coincidentally is a personal pet interest of mine." Cyclists want to use it against drivers, I'm sure shop owners want to use it against robbers, and doubtlessly paranoid parents want to use it against child nappers. Why should exceptions to a ban be carved out for anybody's pet interest?

mikepurvis 6y ago
I think this line of reasoning is dependent on your perspective. The current reality is that most places in the world have loads of private- and publicly-controlled/owned cameras observing public spaces for various reasons, and these cameras are often called upon to assist with apprehending and punishing wrongdoers. So is it me asking for an exemption which would help law enforcement protect me and my family as we get around on foot or by bike? Or is it the drivers asking for an ongoing exemption from being asked to actually follow the laws which are supposed to apply to them?
ErikBjare 6y ago
A major difference is that robbers and child nappers don't have license plates which can easily be read for automated and fair enforcement.