4 ms·

A police or bylaw officer could also do their job and enforce the rules. It doesn't need some kind of automated enforcement to solve it, and doesn't come with t

A police or bylaw officer could also do their job and enforce the rules. It doesn't need some kind of automated enforcement to solve it, and doesn't come with the same dystopian automated surveillance and ticketing.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The automated solution is objective (versus the well known subjective application of law enforcement) and efficient (no breaks, no sleep, no pensions). No law breaking, no ticket.
- version_five 4y ago
  Our law enforcement system was not designed to be automated. It works (because of how it has evolved, not by explicit design) on the threat of enforcement. So people "breaking the law" - and I'm thinking here of traffic laws and other minor offenses - are basically free to weigh their own risk tolerance for the penalty against the chances of being caught. This has flaws, but it preserves some notion of freedom while generally pushing people in the "right" direction to control behaviors society doesn't want. Laws and penalties are commensurate with that, ie there are countless traffic laws all drivers break every day, because they are there to guide and penalties are rare. That is much different than mandatory automated enforcement that would or could penalize everyone every time they broke a law. If we went there, all laws would have to be revisited to understand what is an appropriate threshold and penalty so that we could preserve some kind of personal autonomy. But what would happen in practice is that everyone would get the fines. Then there is the whole question of discretion and personalization. For most people here, I'm sure this falls on deaf ears, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe in technocracy and a world where our behavior is enforced that way is horrifying. Anyone who likes that idea could move to China or Singapore to try it out
  - porknubbins 4y ago
    I agree with your point in general it would be borderline tyrannical to track and punish every harmless violation of traffic laws, but in the case of vehicle modifications its not a momentary behavior, its a choice to permanently install something. I love motorsports and high power bikes and cars but would love to see these annoying loud exhausts off the public streets.
- sircastor 4y ago
  Automated solutions are only objective on the surface. There are often baked-in-biases born from ignorance, privilege, or history. The classic recent example is facial recognition that functions poorly with people of color. Somewhere in the nuance of programming this system will be the (known or unknown) subjective values of the programmer or those that are directing them.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Noise is quite objective. And these systems don’t just instantly hand out a fine. They usually mean you have to bring your vehicle in for inspection. If hoons have to constantly swap out the exhaust on their vehicles it would likely be enough to get the to stop doing it. Or to avoid all areas with automated detection.
    - faeriechangling 4y ago
      What happens if four motorcyclists with legal 75db motorcycles travel together and create 81db of noise?
      - wtallis 4y ago
        It's not the bike that's a public nuisance, it's the noise produced by the bike. Making the noise as a collaborative effort doesn't make it any less of a nuisance.
      - hiptobecubic 4y ago
        Then they won't have to switch their exhaust system back to something legal before getting inspected.
      - Camillo 4y ago
        Death penalty.
dsizzle 4y ago
I don't see the problem. Are you opposed to automation more generally?
mikeyouse 4y ago
The police in San Francisco have had multiple major discrimination scandals. How is automatic enforcement and ticketing more dystopian than letting those jokers continue to decide which laws to enforce on which populations?
- 0des 4y ago
  The second we did anything based on race, positive or negative, it was a bad idea.
keyrat 4y ago
I actually find automated ticketing, such as speed cameras, less intrusive than police. But they have to be visible. I've only dealt with them in Europe where everyone knows where they are. And I find them effective. Unlike always-on cameras I like that they're not recording unless you break the law, and I like that they're objective unlike a police officer might be.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

The automated solution is objective (versus the well known subjective application of law enforcement) and efficient (no breaks, no sleep, no pensions). No law breaking, no ticket.

version_five 4y ago
Our law enforcement system was not designed to be automated. It works (because of how it has evolved, not by explicit design) on the threat of enforcement. So people "breaking the law" - and I'm thinking here of traffic laws and other minor offenses - are basically free to weigh their own risk tolerance for the penalty against the chances of being caught. This has flaws, but it preserves some notion of freedom while generally pushing people in the "right" direction to control behaviors society doesn't want. Laws and penalties are commensurate with that, ie there are countless traffic laws all drivers break every day, because they are there to guide and penalties are rare. That is much different than mandatory automated enforcement that would or could penalize everyone every time they broke a law. If we went there, all laws would have to be revisited to understand what is an appropriate threshold and penalty so that we could preserve some kind of personal autonomy. But what would happen in practice is that everyone would get the fines. Then there is the whole question of discretion and personalization. For most people here, I'm sure this falls on deaf ears, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe in technocracy and a world where our behavior is enforced that way is horrifying. Anyone who likes that idea could move to China or Singapore to try it out
- porknubbins 4y ago
  I agree with your point in general it would be borderline tyrannical to track and punish every harmless violation of traffic laws, but in the case of vehicle modifications its not a momentary behavior, its a choice to permanently install something. I love motorsports and high power bikes and cars but would love to see these annoying loud exhausts off the public streets.
sircastor 4y ago
Automated solutions are only objective on the surface. There are often baked-in-biases born from ignorance, privilege, or history. The classic recent example is facial recognition that functions poorly with people of color. Somewhere in the nuance of programming this system will be the (known or unknown) subjective values of the programmer or those that are directing them.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Noise is quite objective. And these systems don’t just instantly hand out a fine. They usually mean you have to bring your vehicle in for inspection. If hoons have to constantly swap out the exhaust on their vehicles it would likely be enough to get the to stop doing it. Or to avoid all areas with automated detection.
  - faeriechangling 4y ago
    What happens if four motorcyclists with legal 75db motorcycles travel together and create 81db of noise?
    - wtallis 4y ago
      It's not the bike that's a public nuisance, it's the noise produced by the bike. Making the noise as a collaborative effort doesn't make it any less of a nuisance.
    - hiptobecubic 4y ago
      Then they won't have to switch their exhaust system back to something legal before getting inspected.
    - Camillo 4y ago
      Death penalty.

dsizzle 4y ago

I don't see the problem. Are you opposed to automation more generally?

mikeyouse 4y ago

The police in San Francisco have had multiple major discrimination scandals. How is automatic enforcement and ticketing more dystopian than letting those jokers continue to decide which laws to enforce on which populations?

0des 4y ago
The second we did anything based on race, positive or negative, it was a bad idea.

keyrat 4y ago

I actually find automated ticketing, such as speed cameras, less intrusive than police. But they have to be visible. I've only dealt with them in Europe where everyone knows where they are. And I find them effective. Unlike always-on cameras I like that they're not recording unless you break the law, and I like that they're objective unlike a police officer might be.