4 ms·

how are they unconstitutional?

by drsnow 5y ago

margalabargala 5y ago
To be clear, their constitutionality status is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, they should be deemed unconstitutional via a violation of rights against search and seizure, and rights for a proper trial. It's impossible to face your accuser in court, it's impossible to actually check the software used to identify whether you were speeding, and asymmetrically automating enforcement of something where it's in the enforcer's interest to find violations is a perverse incentive we should not allow in our legal system.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  In the case of red light cameras, aren't there pictures to prove the violation?
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    There are pictures to prove the VEHICLE was there, but the mechanism then assumes the owner of the vehicle was the driver, which is a problem.
    - barbazoo 5y ago
      Take two pictures then maybe, one from the front, one from the back. But also, unless the vehicle was stolen, why not put the burden of proof on the owner. Don't people know who they're giving their car to? I think that's how it works in many European countries. If the car is stolen, just file a report.
      - mikestew 5y ago
        why not put the burden of proof on the owner. In the U. S., I'm innocent until proven guilty: prove it was me. No, I'm not telling you who was driving, because my lawyer said something something 5th amendment. But that's the theory, as this not-a-lawyer understands it. In practice, you'll just pay the ticket because the future of civil rights law does not rest on determining who was driving the car that day, and you know it was you anyway.
        kilotaras 5y ago
        > I'm innocent until proven guilty: prove it was me. This is trivially circumvented via "attach fine to car" and "driving in a car with fine attached is illegal." (AFAIK that's how it works in Ukraine). End result is the same.
        ubermonkey 5y ago
        The argument is not that a photo-enforcement mechanism couldn't be structured to abide by US law. The issue is that, thus far, the only attempts have run afoul of foundational elements of our legal structure because the towns/counties who have tried have tied the photo-enforcement tickets to the existing criminal statutes about driving. If it were a civil infraction, with no license points, they'd have a better standing, but nobody has bothered to take that path.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Right to trial, I could see the issue there. Right to inspect the evidence used against you, sure. But where on earth do you get an expectation of privacy in deafening sounds you blast in public, which people can't ignore even if they want to? And audible inside others' private areas?
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    > But where on earth do you get an expectation of privacy in deafening sounds you blast in public, which people can't ignore even if they want to? And audible inside others' private areas? Nowhere, because I never said anything about that.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      You said: >>In my opinion, they should be deemed unconstitutional via a violation of rights against search and seizure The only things searched are that very same deafening noises that everyone has to hear without any effort on their part. If you're saying that's a violation of search and seizure, you're saying there's some expectation of privacy around the violation being prosecuted. If not, what are you saying was being searched/seized that violated privacy? You could have said so the first time you posted, or in your last reply, but elected instead to have plausible deniability of any specific argument.
      - margalabargala 5y ago
        I feel like you're trying to force a very specific wording, "expectation of privacy", that doesn't fit very well with what I'm trying to describe, because in different contexts there can be different definitions/interpretations/kinds of "privacy". For example, if one is driving down a public street, obviously one does not have an expectation of "privacy" in the traditional sense. If everyone driving down a public street is checked, without probable cause, to make sure they aren't violating any laws, I think that should be an unconstitutional search. Obviously that isn't an unconstitutional search under current interpretations of laws, but I think it ought to be.
- ambrozk 5y ago
  You can face your accuser in court. The camera isn't accusing you. The city is. It's using the camera as evidence.
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    It's easy to use a camera as evidence in, say, a robbery. The camera will show you actually committing the crime. If you're speeding, something's measuring your speed based on camera images. The method used to determine speed is not described in detail, just "trust us, they were going the speed we say". It's not generally the city who is doing this, but a third-party private company which sometimes is paid per ticket issued. You can face the city in court, and the city will just say "Our contractor says you did this." The contractor will say "we totally think you did this. No, we will not show you our proprietary software that says you did it." In my opinion, that last statement violates the rights of the accused. There have been numerous cases in the last decade of red light and speed camera companies issuing hundreds of illegitimate tickets. The system is ripe for abuse, and gets abused all the times. Happy to pull up some examples of this if you're curious.
    - ambrozk 5y ago
      I can definitely see these systems being used illegitimately, but this has nothing to do with whether you can face your accuser. A software company telling you that you cannot validate the methodology of their measurement instrument is definitely troubling, but it is not fundamentally dissimilar to the police using speed guns whose internals you cannot inspect to convict you of speeding. Even more problematic than either of these technologies is the fact that the cops jail motorists for DUI on the basis of their own subjective interpretation of those motorists' performances on sobriety field tests. The use of opaque technology by law enforcement raises significant issues in a free society. But so does the use of opaque non-technological judgement by police officers. Since there are significant benefits to automated enforcement, we should be pushing to improve transparency, rather than pursuing a chimera where we can only be prosecuted on the basis of transparent and reproduceable forensic analysis.
      - 5y ago
humanistbot 5y ago
You have no ability to question your accuser, because your accuser is a machine. The source code is proprietary. The data chain is secret. You have no ability to meaningfully audit it to see if it actually works or is making a lot of false positives.
- ensignavenger 5y ago
  Regular speed-guns have the same issues, though.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    You can face your accuser (the traffic cop) and you can challenge the calibration/accuracy of their radar/lidar gun. If you challenge the accuracy they have to prove it was tuned recently (usually 6 months~) prior to issuing the ticket and tested the day of (usually). There IS an audit trail for of certificates and logs of tuning for radar guns so they can prove it in court if challenged. There is NOT an audit trail for traffic cams because the companies don't expose enough information to audit. If you challenge a traffic ticket from a red light camera, you will usually win because they can't prove you guilty.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  What shitty red light cameras are these where the data is all secret? In my city, tickets from red light cameras include a video of the incident, which clearly shows the car and traffic light. Is that really how it works elsewhere, they just send you a ticket saying "we caught you running a red light, please pay fine"? What happens if you show up to court to contest, can't you just point out they have literally no evidence?
  - chickenpotpie 5y ago
    it is extremely easy to edit a green light to a red light, just partially delay the feed. Data is meaningless.
    - 5y ago
daenz 5y ago
Not OP and can't speak to constitutionality, but red light cameras drive some perverse incentives. There have been a number of verified reports[0] that cities with red light cameras shorten the length of the yellow light in order to get more tickets, and therefore revenue. 0. https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/ https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Does any agency have the authority to enact a rule that mandates a minimum duration for the yellow light?
- kilotaras 5y ago
  IMO all Pigovian taxes and fines (alcohol, tobacco, speed fines, etc.) should go in special pool and then distributed to citizens. Fixes moral hazard pretty good.
ensignavenger 5y ago
The legality of them is largely in the implementation. For example, many red-light/speeding cameras don't prove who was driving the vehicle. There have also been issues with shady companies operating them and cities deliberately timing lights to increase ticket revenue.
namlem 5y ago
They arguably violate the right to confront one's accuser in court. Not sure if I buy that argument personally, since there's probably a technician who operates the camera system who could show up to court.

how are they unconstitutional?

by drsnow 5y ago

how are they unconstitutional?

To be clear, their constitutionality status is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, they should be deemed unconstitutional via a violation of rights against search and seizure, and rights for a proper trial. It's impossible to face your accuser in court, it's impossible to actually check the software used to identify whether you were speeding, and asymmetrically automating enforcement of something where it's in the enforcer's interest to find violations is a perverse incentive we should not allow in our legal system.

barbazoo 5y ago
In the case of red light cameras, aren't there pictures to prove the violation?
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  There are pictures to prove the VEHICLE was there, but the mechanism then assumes the owner of the vehicle was the driver, which is a problem.
  - barbazoo 5y ago
    Take two pictures then maybe, one from the front, one from the back. But also, unless the vehicle was stolen, why not put the burden of proof on the owner. Don't people know who they're giving their car to? I think that's how it works in many European countries. If the car is stolen, just file a report.
    - mikestew 5y ago
      why not put the burden of proof on the owner. In the U. S., I'm innocent until proven guilty: prove it was me. No, I'm not telling you who was driving, because my lawyer said something something 5th amendment. But that's the theory, as this not-a-lawyer understands it. In practice, you'll just pay the ticket because the future of civil rights law does not rest on determining who was driving the car that day, and you know it was you anyway.
      - kilotaras 5y ago
        > I'm innocent until proven guilty: prove it was me. This is trivially circumvented via "attach fine to car" and "driving in a car with fine attached is illegal." (AFAIK that's how it works in Ukraine). End result is the same.
        ubermonkey 5y ago
        The argument is not that a photo-enforcement mechanism couldn't be structured to abide by US law. The issue is that, thus far, the only attempts have run afoul of foundational elements of our legal structure because the towns/counties who have tried have tied the photo-enforcement tickets to the existing criminal statutes about driving. If it were a civil infraction, with no license points, they'd have a better standing, but nobody has bothered to take that path.
SilasX 5y ago
Right to trial, I could see the issue there. Right to inspect the evidence used against you, sure. But where on earth do you get an expectation of privacy in deafening sounds you blast in public, which people can't ignore even if they want to? And audible inside others' private areas?
- margalabargala 5y ago
  > But where on earth do you get an expectation of privacy in deafening sounds you blast in public, which people can't ignore even if they want to? And audible inside others' private areas? Nowhere, because I never said anything about that.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    You said: >>In my opinion, they should be deemed unconstitutional via a violation of rights against search and seizure The only things searched are that very same deafening noises that everyone has to hear without any effort on their part. If you're saying that's a violation of search and seizure, you're saying there's some expectation of privacy around the violation being prosecuted. If not, what are you saying was being searched/seized that violated privacy? You could have said so the first time you posted, or in your last reply, but elected instead to have plausible deniability of any specific argument.
    - margalabargala 5y ago
      I feel like you're trying to force a very specific wording, "expectation of privacy", that doesn't fit very well with what I'm trying to describe, because in different contexts there can be different definitions/interpretations/kinds of "privacy". For example, if one is driving down a public street, obviously one does not have an expectation of "privacy" in the traditional sense. If everyone driving down a public street is checked, without probable cause, to make sure they aren't violating any laws, I think that should be an unconstitutional search. Obviously that isn't an unconstitutional search under current interpretations of laws, but I think it ought to be.
ambrozk 5y ago
You can face your accuser in court. The camera isn't accusing you. The city is. It's using the camera as evidence.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  It's easy to use a camera as evidence in, say, a robbery. The camera will show you actually committing the crime. If you're speeding, something's measuring your speed based on camera images. The method used to determine speed is not described in detail, just "trust us, they were going the speed we say". It's not generally the city who is doing this, but a third-party private company which sometimes is paid per ticket issued. You can face the city in court, and the city will just say "Our contractor says you did this." The contractor will say "we totally think you did this. No, we will not show you our proprietary software that says you did it." In my opinion, that last statement violates the rights of the accused. There have been numerous cases in the last decade of red light and speed camera companies issuing hundreds of illegitimate tickets. The system is ripe for abuse, and gets abused all the times. Happy to pull up some examples of this if you're curious.
  - ambrozk 5y ago
    I can definitely see these systems being used illegitimately, but this has nothing to do with whether you can face your accuser. A software company telling you that you cannot validate the methodology of their measurement instrument is definitely troubling, but it is not fundamentally dissimilar to the police using speed guns whose internals you cannot inspect to convict you of speeding. Even more problematic than either of these technologies is the fact that the cops jail motorists for DUI on the basis of their own subjective interpretation of those motorists' performances on sobriety field tests. The use of opaque technology by law enforcement raises significant issues in a free society. But so does the use of opaque non-technological judgement by police officers. Since there are significant benefits to automated enforcement, we should be pushing to improve transparency, rather than pursuing a chimera where we can only be prosecuted on the basis of transparent and reproduceable forensic analysis.
    - 5y ago

humanistbot 5y ago

You have no ability to question your accuser, because your accuser is a machine. The source code is proprietary. The data chain is secret. You have no ability to meaningfully audit it to see if it actually works or is making a lot of false positives.

ensignavenger 5y ago
Regular speed-guns have the same issues, though.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  You can face your accuser (the traffic cop) and you can challenge the calibration/accuracy of their radar/lidar gun. If you challenge the accuracy they have to prove it was tuned recently (usually 6 months~) prior to issuing the ticket and tested the day of (usually). There IS an audit trail for of certificates and logs of tuning for radar guns so they can prove it in court if challenged. There is NOT an audit trail for traffic cams because the companies don't expose enough information to audit. If you challenge a traffic ticket from a red light camera, you will usually win because they can't prove you guilty.
cmeacham98 5y ago
What shitty red light cameras are these where the data is all secret? In my city, tickets from red light cameras include a video of the incident, which clearly shows the car and traffic light. Is that really how it works elsewhere, they just send you a ticket saying "we caught you running a red light, please pay fine"? What happens if you show up to court to contest, can't you just point out they have literally no evidence?
- chickenpotpie 5y ago
  it is extremely easy to edit a green light to a red light, just partially delay the feed. Data is meaningless.
  - 5y ago

daenz 5y ago

Not OP and can't speak to constitutionality, but red light cameras drive some perverse incentives. There have been a number of verified reports[0] that cities with red light cameras shorten the length of the yellow light in order to get more tickets, and therefore revenue. 0. https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/ https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/

rbanffy 5y ago
Does any agency have the authority to enact a rule that mandates a minimum duration for the yellow light?
kilotaras 5y ago
IMO all Pigovian taxes and fines (alcohol, tobacco, speed fines, etc.) should go in special pool and then distributed to citizens. Fixes moral hazard pretty good.

ensignavenger 5y ago

The legality of them is largely in the implementation. For example, many red-light/speeding cameras don't prove who was driving the vehicle. There have also been issues with shady companies operating them and cities deliberately timing lights to increase ticket revenue.

namlem 5y ago

They arguably violate the right to confront one's accuser in court. Not sure if I buy that argument personally, since there's probably a technician who operates the camera system who could show up to court.