Every stoplight should be a speeding, red-light running, and missing tags enforcement camera.
If you were stupid enough to steal a pack of gum (some of my family are) you'll quickly find iyou're unable to buy groceries from any store in your area [1].
[1] https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/blog/the-spectator-has-your-l...
Yes. People don't scale the way computers do.
1. Where to put them? In Chicago these cameras unfortunately end up being a regressive tax.
2. What to do with the money? Anytime we give the government money from things like this, we create weird incentives. I've been wondering lately what it would be like if we required all the fees to be returned to the federal treasury / burned... no incentives!
Everywhere. Starting with highest volume intersections.
> 2. What to do with the money? Anytime we give the government money from things like this, we create weird incentives.
Good concerns to have. I'm less concerned with bad incentives (e.g. vs. civil asset "forfeiture") because the enforcement is automated. There can still be bias in roll-out of the cameras, but this wouldn't be the same degree.
> I've been wondering lately what it would be like if we required all the fees to be returned to the federal treasury / burned... no incentives!
I like that thinking. This makes everyone's money worth ever so slightly more. (which is also minusculey regressive)
But even if it doesn't, it might still be a reasonable tradeoff. A higher number of minor rear-end crashes (typically between unsafe drivers) might be acceptable if it helps to reduce more t-bone crashes that are more likely to be fatal.
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/red-light-camera...
"IIHS research examining large U.S. cities with red light camera programs found significant reductions in citywide fatal red light crash rates (and fatal crash rates of all types) at intersections with traffic signals, including intersections that didn’t have a camera. ... Cities that discontinue their programs tend to feel the sting. The fatal crash rate was 30% higher in cities that shuttered their red light camera programs." https://www.amica.com/en/resources/auto/safety/ways-red-ligh...
But the data do indicate that the benefits of automated traffic enforcement vary widely by community. I suspect any of poor road design, reckless driving culture, or local corruption that prioritizes income over safety can lower their net utility, and some combinations of those might even make their utility net negative.
Unless you've seen data that says otherwise, I think this is the same.
Different from the government (in theory). In the US in particular, any data that is generated from a tax-dollar-paid system is by default public information that can be requested either by FOIA or a state-equivalent law. I think that is a qualitative difference that makes this genuinely worth considering. Imagine if Google et. al. were legally required to make their location data publicly available. I mean, assume that were the case from the inception of the idea to gather that data because that's how it is with governments in the US.
(Granted, there are further considerations around the potential for abuse, especially when considering victims of domestic violence/abuse. But the idea is far more palatable than what we currently have with large corporations.)
Let’s be clear: the current situation is that every trip I take is privately accessible information that is sold for pennies but otherwise difficult to access; critically, there is no obligation for the information to be shared. Yes, this is a far less palatable situation than if such data is simply and plainly public: the gatherers, in this case governments, would have an obligation to share it with the subjects of the data.
I’d personally prefer no data collection, but that’s just where my vote goes. Unfortunately, in this hypothetical my vote was the less popular one:
> If it's useful, and the citizens vote for it, why shouldn't cities collect this data?
Do we prefer that speeding should only be punished when the wrong kind of people do it? Perhaps encourage everyone to make a habit of breaking the law, so that we can use it against them when they say something we don't like?
the only uniform thing would be data collection, loss of privacy, and being a victim of gov-t oppression.
"unbiased" - depends on the bias inherent to the training dataset and enforcement algorithm. Areas with more sensors will get more enforcement.
what if you a victim of false positive? you wont be able to appeal to "unbiased automated enforcement"
just look at recent events, when Trump just stripped some students of their greencards and deported them with 0 due process.
or took a guy with some random tatoo and sent one way to El Salvador...
By "bias inherent to the training dataset and enforcement algorithm", are you talking about anything other than "areas with more sensors"? These aren't exactly LLMs; it's kind of like saying vending machines might be biased because there are more of them in certain areas.
The areas where there are more of them will indeed be the areas where speeding rules get more strongly enforced (eg. school zones), so if you don't want cars speeding through your neighbourhood, you'd want to have better coverage. The areas with no enforcement would be the neighbourhoods being discriminated against, so is your view that it's better to have speed cameras nowhere?
As for due process, that seems entirely unrelated but if anything this puts you in a better spot. If you are a victim of false positive, the recording is right there, you download it from the web portal, review whether it was really a false positive or not, and if so, take it to court to dispute the charge. You don't have to he-said-she-said with a police officer who might, if they were feeling especially vindictive, plant some evidence on you during the traffic stop.
this is what fundamentally people don't understand. They look at one government failure (inability to enforce order on roadways), and cheer to spend taxpayer money to erect a techno-fascist surveillance state.
Sure, if you speed you will get ticket, but also if you post anything against the US government or against Israel, you will be tracked and thugs will come knocking your door.
It is fundamentally wrong to allow government to massively track and collect data on citizens, as it makes it trivial to track and harass people since all your data is in one place, one SQL query away and the state will use it against you
Could it eventually lead to fascism? Maybe, but so could enforcing the law with fast cars and guns if we aren't careful.
Everything will be according to the laws, but you forgot who is writing and passing the laws and in whose interest. It is rarely the interest of the common folk.
I hope I'm just misreading you.
the problem does not match to the solution.
if you look at China then you will see how the state can turn surveillance into oppression machine.
if I can give you analogy, it is: when Scrum team struggles with delivery of software (delayed releases or buggy features), the Scrum master proposes to install CCTV cameras monitoring developers and screen capture software that will monitor every single your action with the goal of "improving performance of the team".
sure the goal is noble, but you are just signing up to be under constant surveillance and be subject to whatever random punishments "The Algorithm" decides to throw at you
So could guns, and they already have been many times.
I don't see why this thing is higher risk than that thing which is already allowed and common?