3 ms·

Yep. Automate the whole thing and be done with traffic cops abusing their power to meet quotas or harass minorities. It would likely make car insurance cheaper

by mcmcmc 6mo ago

Yep. Automate the whole thing and be done with traffic cops abusing their power to meet quotas or harass minorities. It would likely make car insurance cheaper too since people would drive more safely, and the cost of investigations and arbitration drops down with readily available video evidence.

themafia 6mo ago
Just make quotas illegal. Make enforcing them a felony for command staff. Lock up body worn camera videos so they can't be used for "performance review." That footage belongs to the public, for legal purposes, it shouldn't be a "tool" outside of that. More importantly, can I borrow you car? I have some, uh, stuff, to go do.
- mcmcmc 6mo ago
  They're already illegal in a lot of states, doesn't stop it from happening. Cops aren't great at following the law.
diordiderot 6mo ago
You aren't allowed to automate law enforcement because of disparate impact
- mcmcmc 6mo ago
  Right, because human enforcement isn’t selective or biased at all
  - Tangurena2 6mo ago
    You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state. Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people that you'd have to find the most racist officer saying "they all look the same to me" to get that degree of defectivity.
    - sofixa 6mo ago
      > You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state. That's besides the point, you don't need to question a picture with accompanying information (such as location, detected speed). > Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people You don't need facial recognition. Car with plate XYZ (trivial character recognition) ran a red light, $1000 fine with associated picture proof of the crime sent to the owner of the car as registered in their locality. Done.
      - kjkjadksj 6mo ago
        “Not sure who was driving” Most of those red light tickets you’d be surprised but city subreddit advice will be like “ignore it, don’t even look up the ticket number because that acknowledged you received the ticket.” They only mail it to you via regular mail. They have no clue if it actually got to you.
        sofixa 6mo ago
        > “Not sure who was driving” Doesn't matter, fine the owner and let them deal with the driver.
    - mcmcmc 6mo ago
      > You can at least question an officer in court. This is true in theory but not so much in practice. The American legal system only works for people with enough time and/or money to pursue justice (or whatever else they want from the legal system). Like traffic tickets on a road trip - very few people can actually go back to fight them. Facial recognition is irrelevant if the liability is on whomever the vehicle is registered to.

by mcmcmc 6mo ago

themafia 6mo ago

Just make quotas illegal. Make enforcing them a felony for command staff. Lock up body worn camera videos so they can't be used for "performance review." That footage belongs to the public, for legal purposes, it shouldn't be a "tool" outside of that. More importantly, can I borrow you car? I have some, uh, stuff, to go do.

mcmcmc 6mo ago
They're already illegal in a lot of states, doesn't stop it from happening. Cops aren't great at following the law.

diordiderot 6mo ago

You aren't allowed to automate law enforcement because of disparate impact

mcmcmc 6mo ago
Right, because human enforcement isn’t selective or biased at all
- Tangurena2 6mo ago
  You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state. Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people that you'd have to find the most racist officer saying "they all look the same to me" to get that degree of defectivity.
  - sofixa 6mo ago
    > You can at least question an officer in court. Automated stuff is incapable of testifying - which is why traffic camera "tickets" are not enforceable in every state. That's besides the point, you don't need to question a picture with accompanying information (such as location, detected speed). > Facial recognition performs so poorly on non-white people You don't need facial recognition. Car with plate XYZ (trivial character recognition) ran a red light, $1000 fine with associated picture proof of the crime sent to the owner of the car as registered in their locality. Done.
    - kjkjadksj 6mo ago
      “Not sure who was driving” Most of those red light tickets you’d be surprised but city subreddit advice will be like “ignore it, don’t even look up the ticket number because that acknowledged you received the ticket.” They only mail it to you via regular mail. They have no clue if it actually got to you.
      - sofixa 6mo ago
        > “Not sure who was driving” Doesn't matter, fine the owner and let them deal with the driver.
  - mcmcmc 6mo ago
    > You can at least question an officer in court. This is true in theory but not so much in practice. The American legal system only works for people with enough time and/or money to pursue justice (or whatever else they want from the legal system). Like traffic tickets on a road trip - very few people can actually go back to fight them. Facial recognition is irrelevant if the liability is on whomever the vehicle is registered to.