Hacker News Reader

>In Minnesota red light cameras and such automated ticketing systems were determined to be illegal (for the state):

>The result? Minnesota isn't experiencing some sort of Mad Max like traffic apocalypses, things seem pretty normal and I don't know of any dramatic disparity between places that use such cameras and those who do not. Meanwhile corruption and other issues cloud the traffic camera world... it's a product that arguably encourages / benefits bad actors, and possibly nobody else despite what we might otherwise think it does.

There are so many areas of law and law enforcement that are like this. Turns out if you just let people do whatever most people will do what society considers reasonable because at scale what people do determines what society considers reasonable.

> There are so many areas of law and law enforcement that are like this. Turns out if you just let people do whatever most people will do what society considers reasonable because at scale what people do determines what society considers reasonable.

This is part of the core argument for libertarianism - and has been my experience in life. Generally every time I head someone should "there ought to be a law against that" there probably shouldn't be one without considerable thought on the matter.

The history of law enforcement certainly seems to be a long line of misguided actions with results we might not expect / incentives that are not good.

Don't want to get into a political debate, but this is a lot of the principles of modern anarchism (sometimes called "AnCom"). I am unsure of the feasability of such a society, but it is interesting to read about theories and ideas if anyone wants to learn more.

> and we should seriously evaluate / question if they really provide much actual value. It can seem like there is value there, but the end result might be far different than we think.

Also, who is getting the value. With many public-private "partnerships" like this, it doesn't seem like the general public is getting value out of it; rather, it's the parties involved in making the business deal. The government can be wined-and-dined with sales pitches, and then pat themselves on the back for "making the public safer". The companies get a lucrative deal from the government.

Smart things, like these cameras, gives the companies that operate them a blackbox to work with that impacts the public but is not accessible to the public. So now, a company that has a vested interest in themselves, has the government go-ahead to cast a net to make money from the public. What a great deal, right?

Even if companies and government promise they won't do anything malicious or unjust, how can we actually trust their word when the ability for a company to skew things in their favor is such a low barrier?

If I ask a valet, "You won't joyride my car?", and they say, "No", how much of a guarantee is it that they won't joyride? Maybe they don't do anything obvious that would throw off a red flag, like significantly deplete the fuel or run up the odometer, but they decide to redline the car to hear it VROOM or drag race it in a short stretch of a street. These little 'nothings' add up over time, or at least give the incentives to get bigger and bolder over time if nobody notices.

Who is to say a company with smart things, like these cameras, wouldn't decrease the capture time by a few milliseconds on their highest revenue intersection, or release an "erroneous update" that lowers the red light capture tolerances?

It's better to be less trusting of these "smart" business dealings than to openly invite the possibility for abuse right through the door.

I was just sitting at an intersection last night. A fire truck came by with sirens and two vehicles had to move slightly into the lane to get out of the way.

The camera flashed for both of their cars. Nice way to get punished for helping.