3 ms·

There’s definitely a middle ground. Cameras have huge advantages in some areas. A ton of traffic enforcement, a job which is extremely dangerous for police now,

There’s definitely a middle ground. Cameras have huge advantages in some areas. A ton of traffic enforcement, a job which is extremely dangerous for police now, can be done with cameras. Cameras do not fail to recollect, they do not get tired, they don’t give a pass to “desirables” and crack down on others, and they don’t get scared and kill people. The vast majority of traffic stops are a “this could’ve been a letter” situation. If people are speeding, send out a ticket. If their tail light is out, send them a notice in the mail or a ticket depending on the situation. If people are driving drunk, cameras can see that as well, and enforcement can be dispatched. If a vehicle is stolen, a network of cameras can find it faster than people can.

consumer451 3y ago
This is a really good point. I was not thinking of the robot enforcement mechanisms which you mentioned. Those are indeed a benefit. I live in a part of the world where they are used, and it is much better than selective enforcement. I was imagining a certain billionaire's Stasi as as service company informing inhuman robots to enforce the law, as said billionaire saw fit. Being a black box, the rules might be more shitified than speed > 60 mph. They might be: negative social connections >n. Who would know, it's a proprietary black box. The funny thing is that I now realize that inhuman humans would be fit for the job as well. This is an area that opensource would shine. Our existing system of laws is indeed open source for the most part. I hope it stays that way.