3 ms·

One might argue that a citizen shouldn't need to prove they didn't break a law, but rather the government has to (reliably) prove that they did. I wonder if th

by squigz 3y ago

One might argue that a citizen shouldn't need to prove they didn't break a law, but rather the government has to (reliably) prove that they did. I wonder if there's a phrase for that.

simmerup 3y ago
That’s what the picture is for
hackernewds 3y ago
False positives can be human validated
- eli 3y ago
  false positives can also be human generated
yardie 3y ago
I've contested the red light camera fines in my municipality a few times now. In every case I request the footage and each time it's been overturned because the footage clearly shows me stopping before turning right on read. Ive never had to provide proof that is the states job.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Meanwhile, I've never had to contest a false positive because my state doesn't allow red light cameras. That's a lot of time that I haven't had to spend defending myself against spurious charges. It doesn't especially matter where the burden of proof lies if the process for contesting requires any substantial amount of effort on the part of the victim of the false positive.
- garbagewoman 3y ago
  You did have to provide proof! you were assumed guilty until you proved yourself innocent by using the evidence that the state themselves already had, but didn’t present as proof of the infringement.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    In this case the assumption is that the camera evidence is accurate and conclusive. If it was a blurry picture, I don’t think they would be asked to provide additional evidence to prove they weren’t guilty, the ticket would simply be thrown out. In other words, the burden of proof is still on the government to provide sufficient evidence. If they won’t or can’t, there is no case.
    - garbagewoman 3y ago
      The person I replied to was required to challenge the assumption that they were guilty, and the camera evidence exonerated them every time, so by your standards should have been thrown out. The “burden” was on them to “prove” themselves innocent, its literally in the name. Just because the state possessed the evidence to prove his case doesn’t mean the burden was on them
      - lolinder 3y ago
        Exactly. Forcing someone to challenge a fine that they've already been issued is not presumed innocence, it's presumed guilt. If someone fails to act affirmatively to challenge the fine for any reason (work commitments, disability, death in the family, the list goes on) then they're on the hook for the charge in spite of the fact that the state knowingly used an inaccurate system to issue the fine.
- cgriswald 3y ago
  The state should have reviewed the footage and not charged you in the first place. That should be codified into law because the state is doubly incentivized to do nothing about false positives. If you pay it, they get free money. If you don’t, they get free labor.
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    In this case, the article clearly states that a human will review the footage... not sure what happened in the above cases, if there was no review, or if the review was simply rushed? I do think it would be fair if the state had to pay the same fine back to the person they incorrectly fined as compensation for their time.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
cyanydeez 3y ago
These tickets get sent in the mail with proof, the photos. The only thing you can argue is that it shouldnt require a court case to dispute unless it fails a human review.
- LtWorf 3y ago
  lol. No they don't.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    It depends on the location, my local automated speed camera process involves getting a human-approved ticket in the mail that includes the photos.
Traubenfuchs 3y ago
You might be looking for one of those? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
- squigz 3y ago
  I was being sarcastic, apologies :) The phrase I was referring to is "innocent until proven guilty."
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
None of our processes have a 0% false positive rate. Not tickets written by humans, not criminal charges filed by humans, not court cases tried in front of a jury. So maybe a phrase would be "unrealistic expectations". But what we should expect (and demand) is that the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal. I would actually ask that the errors be easier to correct, not just no harder. Even if the error rate is lower, automated systems will detect a larger number of errors and therefore are likely to create a larger number of false positives. If we're going to automate the creation of false positives we need to equivalently automate their correction.
- cgriswald 3y ago
  Even if we accept automated evidence gathering we don’t have to accept automating charges based on that evidence.

by squigz 3y ago

One might argue that a citizen shouldn't need to prove they didn't break a law, but rather the government has to (reliably) prove that they did. I wonder if there's a phrase for that.

simmerup 3y ago

That’s what the picture is for

hackernewds 3y ago

False positives can be human validated

eli 3y ago
false positives can also be human generated

yardie 3y ago

I've contested the red light camera fines in my municipality a few times now. In every case I request the footage and each time it's been overturned because the footage clearly shows me stopping before turning right on read. Ive never had to provide proof that is the states job.

lolinder 3y ago
Meanwhile, I've never had to contest a false positive because my state doesn't allow red light cameras. That's a lot of time that I haven't had to spend defending myself against spurious charges. It doesn't especially matter where the burden of proof lies if the process for contesting requires any substantial amount of effort on the part of the victim of the false positive.
garbagewoman 3y ago
You did have to provide proof! you were assumed guilty until you proved yourself innocent by using the evidence that the state themselves already had, but didn’t present as proof of the infringement.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  In this case the assumption is that the camera evidence is accurate and conclusive. If it was a blurry picture, I don’t think they would be asked to provide additional evidence to prove they weren’t guilty, the ticket would simply be thrown out. In other words, the burden of proof is still on the government to provide sufficient evidence. If they won’t or can’t, there is no case.
  - garbagewoman 3y ago
    The person I replied to was required to challenge the assumption that they were guilty, and the camera evidence exonerated them every time, so by your standards should have been thrown out. The “burden” was on them to “prove” themselves innocent, its literally in the name. Just because the state possessed the evidence to prove his case doesn’t mean the burden was on them
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Exactly. Forcing someone to challenge a fine that they've already been issued is not presumed innocence, it's presumed guilt. If someone fails to act affirmatively to challenge the fine for any reason (work commitments, disability, death in the family, the list goes on) then they're on the hook for the charge in spite of the fact that the state knowingly used an inaccurate system to issue the fine.
cgriswald 3y ago
The state should have reviewed the footage and not charged you in the first place. That should be codified into law because the state is doubly incentivized to do nothing about false positives. If you pay it, they get free money. If you don’t, they get free labor.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  In this case, the article clearly states that a human will review the footage... not sure what happened in the above cases, if there was no review, or if the review was simply rushed? I do think it would be fair if the state had to pay the same fine back to the person they incorrectly fined as compensation for their time.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

cyanydeez 3y ago

These tickets get sent in the mail with proof, the photos. The only thing you can argue is that it shouldnt require a court case to dispute unless it fails a human review.

LtWorf 3y ago
lol. No they don't.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  It depends on the location, my local automated speed camera process involves getting a human-approved ticket in the mail that includes the photos.

Traubenfuchs 3y ago

You might be looking for one of those? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

squigz 3y ago
I was being sarcastic, apologies :) The phrase I was referring to is "innocent until proven guilty."

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

None of our processes have a 0% false positive rate. Not tickets written by humans, not criminal charges filed by humans, not court cases tried in front of a jury. So maybe a phrase would be "unrealistic expectations". But what we should expect (and demand) is that the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal.

lolinder 3y ago
> the process have no higher an error rate than human reporting, and that the errors should be no harder to correct/appeal. I would actually ask that the errors be easier to correct, not just no harder. Even if the error rate is lower, automated systems will detect a larger number of errors and therefore are likely to create a larger number of false positives. If we're going to automate the creation of false positives we need to equivalently automate their correction.
cgriswald 3y ago
Even if we accept automated evidence gathering we don’t have to accept automating charges based on that evidence.