3 ms·
I'm all for automated traffic law enforcement via camera, but I think it's very reasonable to say that if the camera doesn't detect a violation of the law, the
by gpm 2y ago
I'm all for automated traffic law enforcement via camera, but I think it's very reasonable to say that if the camera doesn't detect a violation of the law, the data needs to be deleted not warehoused.
- echoangle 2y agoSo you would be against storing the data for a few days so if a non-traffic crime is detected later (a murder for example), the traffic recordings can be used to help in the investigation? I think that's useful too.
- shkkmo 2y agoThag entirely depends on the implementation details of the access controls to that data and if the police need a warrant to access that data.
- gpm 2y agoYes. As soon as the automated traffic enforcement purpose is done with (the car wasn't speeding/wasn't running a red/so on) the data should be deleted. If the police reach the data before it's deleted after they know it may have evidence of a crime that's ok (realistically this is rare, but I can imagine it happening with paired cameras that measure speed over a long distance of road. You could also get lucky where a false positive image happened to capture a different crime), but we shouldn't be storing surveillance data that tracks everyone's movements on the off chance that it has evidence of a crime. The harm outweighs the use at that point.
- ldoughty 2y agoI personally agree, but there has to be a time frame allowed... e.g. cameras at an intersection that had an accident: It probably would take 'a day or two' at least for such a request to get to the camera operators to request they send a copy. I'd also personally prefer speed cameras that are not point-in-time records. This just encourages police to put them where they know people are more likely to violate the law, like at the bottom of hills, where there's not really a danger, but it generates more revenue. I'd want speed cameras that are miles apart... and the determination that you get a speeding ticket is that you traveled several miles at high speed.
- wcoenen 2y ago> I'd want speed cameras that are miles apart... and the determination that you get a speeding ticket is that you traveled several miles at high speed. That's what SPECS does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera) There are similar systems in other countries. Here in Belgium we have "trajectcontrole".
- try_the_bass 2y ago> This just encourages police to put them where they know people are more likely to violate the law, like at the bottom of hills, where there's not really a danger, but it generates more revenue. Judging by the number of accidents I've seen at the bottom of hills, I'm skeptical of your statement that "there's not really a danger" there. I don't think posting up at the bottom of a hill is a revenue-generating thing, it's simply an exercise of going to where the crime happens. In this case, it's at the bottom of a hill that makes it easier for drivers to reach excessive speeds and thus are an increased danger to everyone else on the road. This is exactly where you want to deter people from behaving dangerously, and where you want to punish the people who fail to pay enough attention to avoid getting a ticket in such an obvious scenario.
- potato3732842 2y agoI don't think the infrastructure should be there at all. No institution can be trusted with it. The scope WILL creep eventually.