Slashdot Mirror
Law Enforcement by Machines
Inst1gator writes "Nowadays, it seems as if more and more law enforcement is being done by machines. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be up to the job. And the humans don't want to take responsibility, either. This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
But the Robocop was good!
I am a genius; therefore, you suck.
Just wondering...I can already hear references to Robocop, Ed-209, and Omnicorp. Can I be the first to say "I'll buy that for a dollar?"
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Unfortunately, [the machines] don't seem to be up to the job. And the humans don't want to take responsibility, either.
:)
So the machines don't do a great job. The people aren't up to the task either. It seems to me we need a combination of the two if we are to police our country efficiently.
Some sort of "Robo-cop" if you will.
And in order to fund such a venture we should probably move the police force into the private sector.
The purpose of using automation for anything, even law enforcement, is to gain efficiency while not losing accuracy.
Since people conceive of these devices, and people are by turns greedy, mistake-prone, and downright incompentent at times, we can expect the devices to share these same characteristics.
By the same token, a tool in the wrong hands can become a weapon. Imagine the guy/gal who installs traffic cameras hooking up their own little transmitter to surveil the intersection looking for their boyfriend/girlfriend/hermaphrodite riding in someone else's car! Better yet, imagine the CIA or FBI doing the same.
We need to enforce the laws on the enforcers of laws or the Constitution goes right out the window.
Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
"Please put down your keyboard, you have 20 seconds to comply."
My SO had his entire account shut down because he had a back-up file for irc stored in his account. They accused him of *running* irc on their servers which was blatantly false. This happened within the last two weeks.
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
oops, well comment too.
Shame this had to come out on FOX, I mean its good the general media is picking up on this, but FOX is so ill-reputed.
The article brings up some good points. The EFF want to sue the owner of the bot for child-porn distribution? The machination of society is often ranted about by Gibson, Stephenson and other Cyber-Punk authors. Machines naver lie right? Are there any lawsuits involving fixed/wrong machines? Anyone ever fought a rigged red light ticket?
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
most auto ticket things dont take into acount time ware you have no choice but to run a red light, for example if your sitting in the middle of an intersection tring to turn and the light turns red you have to turn or else your holding up trafic, the camera will take your pic. They simply dont have the AI to deturmin if you desirve a ticket or not. At least they dont tell your insurance
sorry for the bad spalling I dont have a checker installed yet
Computers Don't Argue, by Gordon Dickson, is a short story I found in the first Nebula award stories, is particularly apropos to this. It is a short, humorous, and satiric look at this particular role of computers in society, and while a bit dated, still is quite effective at illustrating the point found in the article.
Intellectual property law is going to be a big chunk of automated law enforcement. Check out this : Intellectual Property Bots Wonder if IBM found this eBay auction for IBMLinux.com with it yet.
One of the bots mentioned is one that searched around of "Harrison" and got some preteen images.
Another bot mentioned looks for people who search for preteen images.
We need to get these two bots to cross paths. Then their owners will be so busy sueing each other they won't care what the rest of us do.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Not only does the robots need to get better at law enforcement,
... testified that an IP address is, "in very simple terms, a Social Security number. Only one person at one specific time can have that number." In fact, an IP address identifies a computer, rather than a person, and may not even consistently map to a particular machine in networks that use dynamic IP addressing.
... is not authorized by Warner Bros. ... or the law."
so do the Humans involved
At the bail hearing for Johnston, Tinney and three other defendants in Houston, the FBI's Kristen Sheldon
any one that is even allowed to even get near law enforcement in this area show have some kind of technology background, judges and jury included
The brief also identifies a file entitled "harry potter book report.rtf" whose name and tiny size (1K) make obvious that it is not an illegal copy of the Harry Potter movie. Obvious to anyone who looks, anyway. But why should the record and movie companies bother to look? They're unlikely to suffer any damages if ISPs take down the wrong files, and the consumers involved are unlikely to sue them. (In filing with the Internet Service Providers, a company representative even certified in writing "that we have a good faith belief that use of the material
a person was definately involved in this situation, yet it was allowed to get this far
this should let everyone know that we have a problem, and that the "general public" is not as informed as we had hoped/thought
Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking - H.L. Mencken
There is one of these devices near my house. Although it does not give tickets still ellicits a Pavlovian response. Going more than 5 milez per hour over the speed limit, triggers a siren noise, and a "strobe" light until you decrease speed back to the psudo-legal range (Max MPH+5).
For the first few weeks of it being there, brake lights were flashing like none other (people tend to go very fast in this area), but now about 4 months later, the speeds in the area are back to the legal (and slow) speeds.
.noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
The world is turning into Max Headroom. The proposed fx show that would fund someone to run for President was the last straw.
Maybe "military intelligence" would cease being a joke :)
In my local town, we have a new system that is this giant red box thats a combo mug shot taker, fingerprint scanner, and general data entry system. I got arrested recently for posession and i noticed how inaccurate it kept records of me, screwed up my photo a few times, and how compared with previous ink fingerprints i've had done in the past, it picked up the smallest details, like the incredably small scar thats hard to see by eye and made it a HUGE black line across my print, almost to the point that it could have voided that print invalid due to lack of comparison points. Technology should be curtailed to jobs they can do well
What makes foxnews any less legitimate than cnn or even msnbc? Personally I would rather watch a network not owned by mr. UN himself (ted turner). I like fox because they are not afraid of being too politically correct and leaning to the left.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Go with humans, who are known fallable and subjective, or machines, who are known fallable and too objective. In the name of jusice (being blind and all) I think most of us would agree we would prefer an emotionally-inert policing force. The problem is then this: how do we trust them? Are they just being unilaterally fair or inept?
Cops now might pick up someone for Driving while Black but a machine wouldn't differentiate between the lunatic going 125 and the man rushing to get his dying wife to the hospital.
In the end we all assume we have a good idea how people are going to act. Thus we will always distrust machines to watch over us. These story remind me of Skynet from the Terminator. "Afterwards all stealth bombers flew with perfect operational records."
How did that story turn out? Man, out of fear, turns against the Machine. The Machine retaliates. Funny thing is that I think most people would agree with the story. In our heart of hearts all of us are Luddites. Heck, just read the poster's last comment: "This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
What is music when you despise all sound?
The article uses the example of a web crawler that uses a simple match of keywords to identify copyrighted material. But it's not the web crawler itself that's the problem... the problem is that the people who are running the operation are unwilling to invest the time and resources to (1) improve their software, and (2) verify results by human experts.
Like so many other things, it comes down to human laziness and apathy. We use automated systems to help generate solutions to problems in science and engineering... but all results are verified by intelligent people before they are put to real use. Software and other automation tricks are used to HELP people decide, not to replace people in the decision process.
or rather, their misplaced faith! Seems mighty foolish to me for big corporations to threaten legal action against people merely because of what a (potentially buggy, and clearly imprecise) computer program tells them, without even reviewing the results. Sadly, it shows just how secure the RIAA etc are feeling with their (ill-gotten?) billions and trained attack lawyers.
(don't hold it against me, but I wonder if the search tools have buffer overflows. hmm.)
Anyone know what programs they use, besides Ranger? I'd be interested in what those companies have to say. Please reply with any info.
I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
So great, we'll start seeing shows like "B O T S - Bad Box, Bad Box, Whatcha Gonna Do?" or "World's Scariest Red-Light-Runner Photos!"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
machines are too easy to deploy in large numbers to stop simple violations (speeding, jaywalking, stop sign rolling, etc).
.02
I actually believe this to be a Bad Thing. We are getting to the point were we are:
1. coming to accept this as acceptable.
2. actually making jokes about it.
I agree that it will allow for manpower to be directed towards more violent crime, but it will also threaten the rest of us and our pockets and our records.
I am COMPLETELY against automated traffic control (red-light monitors and the like). If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.
That's my worthless
The motorcyclists in Europe have been hit hard by the ticketing machines, or so I've heard.
Not only do they have limits by age and displacement, now this big brother stuff...cameras mounted in trees, etc.
From what I've heard, some people are wearing masks and sneaking up to the cams and wrenching them...black spray paint over the lens or a strategic hammer blow, etc.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Isnt this what Lawrence Lessig was talking about in his big code is law rant?
Its makes sense, that if some piece of software is going to make legally binding judgements against you, that you should at least get to see the source code.
If not, then how the hell do you really know what the law is...
If the light turns red while you're in the intersection then you are completly legal.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Skynet?
a ^= b; b ^= a; a ^= b;
This is the point of the 1st amendment. Injustice can only go so far in a society that has free and open communications before someone points it out.
This is one of the greatest questions I have on "trusted computing", it so limits the ability to diseminate information. I might not have a problem if it could *only* be applied to Disney Movies, but once it exists for one it can be used for any.
It isn't enough to bitch here, its important to shake some of your local gov't's cages, not to mention the feds.
Screw cameras.
Message from user riaa_bot: You have been found trading illegal mp3 copies of a copyrighted song we own. Please stand by as our hired vigilante script kiddies will begin DDOSing your computer. Thank you.
Me: Officer, I don't think you're supposed to be drinking while on duty...
Officer: Bite my shiny metal ass
A computer won't shake you down for bribes, or plant evidence. A computer won't selectively enforce the law, unless told to, but then it becomes its own proof of corruption. A computer will not lie in court, unless its records are modified, but the maliable nature of digital files ensures greater standards for repudiation.
I trust machines over cops for the same reasons I trust Amazon over shifty checkout clerks.
When the US was a somewhat free country, with a constution of not insignificant meaning. Where justice was somewhat Just...
The accused was considered innocent until proven guilty, and had a right to face the accuser.
Now a days, all bets are off.
Is there anyone with a valid plan to re-seize our freedoms from the Tyranical Police State we have spawned?
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
Don't confuse this with a news story about IP law or anything else: its an editorial by Glenn Reynolds, who also runs www.instapundit.com, a Republican blog. I'm not disagreeing with his point in the article, but be sure to take it with a grain of salt.
Note to slashdot editors: It would be super if you could post these stories with some mention that it is an editorial.
s/repudiation/non-repudiation/g
I am COMPLETELY against automated traffic control (red-light monitors and the like). If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.
The laws don't mean "unless you get caught." It means "all the time."
What problem, exactly, do you have with machines used for checking traffic violations? You can still go to trial if you want.
And as for your pocketbook/record--follow the rules of the road, and you'll be fine on both cases.
I worked in a computer vision lab that was commissioned to invent a vision system for downtown Orlando that would detect violence or possibly disturbing behavior. Actually, about all we got was a heck of a lot of publicity, and an agreement that when we finished our research, the city would buy the hardware.
Anyway, we called it the downtown project because most of the rest of our work was for the academic community, Darpa, or Lockheed-Martin.
Our goal was similar to most such projects: to allow policemen to focus on suspicious activity, and to ignore what isn't. You've heard the phrase "a policeman on every street corner?" Why have them there if nothing is happening?
We're not talking about putting these in neighborhoods; not it private areas - in fact, this came up during the conversations we had with local government and they were very much against it -we're talking about putting them in very public places. This is a measure which is intended to save lives and potentially lower the cost of law enforcement.
One of the things I like best about this is that unlike policemen, cameras are colorblind. They don't care if you're homeless, or a minority, rich or poor. They only look at what you're doing. A policemen's attention won't be tuned to an area because he doesn't like the color of skin of its inhabitants (which has a lot to do with how it works right now), he'll be doing it because he got an impartial warning. Seems like a good idea to me.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Faked what? Both were live and bombed out just as bad as Geraldo opening up Capone's vault in the 80s. What do the fox movie/tv studios in california have to do with the news headquarters in new york? You'd rather the news wait and be last on the scene?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
New technology will always replace the old way of doing things. I'm sure the first wheels that we used weren't perfectly round, but we improved them.
*DrugCheese rants*
I am a strong supporter of our freedom. But seriously now, anyone who is even the tiniest bit impartial can tell that both the article cited on slashdot and the article cited about how they are rigged were written by one sided, biased idiots.
That's not good reporting folks. It's Fox, it's trash, and I'm not surprised. I particularly like the portrayal of how policemen have to do "nothing" so they shouldn't have a radio in the car.
Way to go. Why was this crap even posted to slashdot?
You know you're being exposed to quality journalism when it contants the word "Puhleez." Was this FOX News article written by a 12 year old?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
A computer will always ticket you, arrest you, etc. A human can make (for better or for worse) judgement calls. Lets say your racing to hospital with your wife in labor, or your parent having a heart attack. Robocop pulls you over and arrests you on the spot for reckless driving. A human would more then likely give you a lights and siren escort.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
It must always be remembered that laws ultimately have oversight by a judge or jury. In the U.S. at least, this is the model. The people who make the laws remain separate from the people who enforce the laws, separate from the people who decide whether law was broken, and how justice should be meted out. (unless we're talking about terrorism or drugs, of course; then it's all up to John Ashcroft)
Computers can only do a fraction of the enforcement part and none of the legislation or judgement.
...or at least they will be when they are mature.
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
There are laws on the books today which, if they were regularly enforced, might be considered opressive. The reason they continute to be on the books is that detection is currently fairly difficult, so they are enforced infrequently. Also it is MUCH harder to repeal laws than to pass them.
If we create an aparatus of total detection and enforcement with automatic penalties, then these laws will suddenly be enforced completely. The net effect will be almost like suddenly passing a large number of intrusive laws. In short, the enforcement regime will have changed to something that was not envisioned by the original authors of the law, and the change of regime will not be subject to any real legislative review. Also, many people (esp those who lean the libertarian way) may have objected to the law when it was first passed, but decided that since it was unenforceable, there was no point in protesting it.
Another problem is that technological systems always have a human element which can lead to the very same corruption that you fear, only in the machine enforcement case, it is much harder to demonstrate the human corruption element to a jury. (I assume you still want a jury?)
--
MM
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
That's brilliant!! You could make a honeypot for the search tools as well, perhaps fake a collection of a couple of terabytes of mp3's. Depending on how automated the system is, you might just be able to point the trained attack lawyers at some portion of the RIAA itself... As you alluded to, however, you would need to have one of these programs in captivity before you could really figure out a good exploit for them. Hmmm.....
I am artificially intelligent.
I've been thinking about this trend a lot recently, and I am very disturbed by it. I've tried to come up with a catchy, sinister sounding phrase for a poster/sticker campaign. I propose the term "automated justice" and the campaign "Americans Against Automated Justice" (for those of us in America, of course). The logo could be a surveillance camera. So what do you think? Will the average man on the street get it?
Hell, I hate the way people constantly use the dying wife (or whatever) argument. The fact is, it almost never happens. The judgement calls I'd be concerned about are those like: A motorist is goin 15 kph over the speed limit on a straight, 4-lane highway on a brilliantly sunny day with no other cars in sight. No reasonable cop would book someone for that. However, they would hit you hard for going even 1 kph over the limit in dense fog in dense traffic...
Is why speed limits are set to where they are if EVERYBODY is breaking them? Is a law really a law if EVERYBODY is violating it?
Cops say everyone speeds and drives with the flow of traffic. Then the speed limit should be adjusted.
this link should pretty much put that idea to rest.
ad-hominem attacks are so 90s.
I don't care what kind of computer software is out there trying to trace track or otherwise limit what I can do and access on the internet. Me and ten million other hackers will be the first to figure out how any such systems work and to disable them ASAP. The internet cannot be controlled. This has been proven time and again. Only the people using the internet can be controlled, and not even very well at that. In regard to red light cameras and automated law robots... good luck... I am not fond of technology in general; and I will be the first to carry around an EMP generator. ;)
Slow Down Cowboy!
You have violated HighLordTaco's speed typing statute. Step away from the keyboard for 20 seconds. Now.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
These highly energetic rays can penetrate meters of solid concrete and are constantly slamming into the earth (most absorbed by the atmosphere, but more than enough left to cause trouble).
A brief overview is available from Nature.
Ever had a bizarre but completely UN-reproducible crash on your pc? Could be it was a cosmic ray, not just the "Ghost of Bill".
After years as a support engineer (thank god I got out of that) I can say with some surety that it is a much under-estimated cause of errors.
Unusual, but not impossible.
So, to cut a long story short - can computers (excluding specifically and expensively hardened army/nasa chips) ever be relied upon in these mission-critical situations?
Um, no. But it has never stopped us before.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
You make a very good point. But do you see the solution more as ignoring the current offenders by not using computers to enforece the law, or more as the laws being changed to something much more realistic?
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Here in San Diego we have the automated traffic light enforcement. For these devices to take pictures at dusk and dark they employ a strobe. One night some cross traffic was in the intersection when the lights switched, prompting the camera into action. When it did this, as I start moving on my green, I am hit by three bright flashes that virtually rendered me blind.
I had to slow down and it took a few moments to regain my sight. Fortunately those behind me where understanding, most likely victums themselves, and didn't honk. The point is that this automation could have caused damage to property.
Later they had to be shut down by court order due to false results. San Diego sued its local enforcement, as well as the operator (lockheed I believe) for "rigging" them to improve revenue.
Ever since they had been installed I wondered where all the teenage hooligans had gone that would bash them at a HIGH cost to the city. Even if it comes out of my pocket at the end of the day, I wouldn't have shed a tear, nor the vast majority of San Diego. In fact there had been a vote or a petition to remove them completely, of course ignored by those who run our city who obviously know best (cough gag hack).
So if everyone started naming their files with movie and song titles the bots would be overloaded with useless hits. That would be terrible.
%touch nirvana.mp3
%touch OrdinaryDay.mp3
Wrong. I recently got a $200 Ticket going 10 Mph over the limit on a straight road with no one near me. The day was sunny not a cloud in the sky and it was a pure straight away. Now not only did i lose $200 but my insurance is now $300 a year higher, for the next 5 years. It's all about how much of a jerk the cop is.
-Mishra
I don't know how well people remember the plot of the RoboCop films, but, for those who don't, a significant element of the plot is that OCP (the mega-corporation) eventually ends up privately running the city of Detroit's police department.
Their eventual goal, by the way, is privatization of the city itself ("Delta City").
You didn't see the cop, the only other car around you, on a long straight away, without a cloud in the sky? Yeah, this is all that cop's fault. Dumbass.
Ben Franklin warned us that, "He who gives up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."
It is amazing how far from the constitution America has wandered.
I ripped the following from the TAFA website but it is right on
Due Process:
DEFINITION: The legal process by which U.S. citizens are promised a fair trial in the U.S. Constitution Article XVI Paragraph 1. U.S. Citizens are promised "The Equal Protection of Law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These rights have been reaffirmed in numerous federal court cases. A successful civil rights lawsuit against the "State" for unlawful deprivation of law was reaffirmed in "Gault vs Arizona," 87 SupCt 1428
1. The RIGHT to receive notice of charges.
2. The RIGHT of the assistance of Counsel.
3. The RIGHT to confront your accuser and to cross-examination of the complainants.
4. The RIGHT to exercise a privilege against self-incrimination.
5. The RIGHT to a transcript of the proceedings and,
6. The RIGHT to appellate review.
7. The RIGHT to subpoena witnesses and subpoena documentary evidence to support your position or contradict evidence presented against you.
8. The RIGHT to "Trial by Jury of Citizens at Common Law."
9. The RIGHT to receive Equal Protection of the Law.
10. The RIGHT to a "Presumption of Innocence" prior to trial.
11. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" the protection of the U.S. and State Constitution Bill of Rights.
12. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" any defense expressly created in statute and case law precedent.
13. The RIGHT to sue any U.S. citizen for "Unlawful Deprivation of any constitutional, statutory, or administrative right."
14. The RIGHT of access and use of any taxpayer-funded law library, government building, and courtroom.
P.S. can anyone show me where in teh constitution it says anything about seperation of church and state? There is that statement that congress shall make no law
A little Constitutional law will go a long way
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
If the light turns red while you're in the intersection then you are completly legal
Typo, did you mean illegal?
If not the above is an extremely common error. In most jurisdictions, if not all, you can not enter the intersection unless you can make it all the way through. Creeping into it while green in order to make the turn does not give you a pass.
How many people here have visited warez sites that pop up banners advertising "sexy lolitas", "nude swedish girls", etc. Some of these pics seem to aim at the below 18 mark, which I've always found disgusting. Now, though, it seems that if I were to have been caught with these in my browser cache I could have been (in US law anyways) charged with possession of kiddy porn?
We need to stick a judge and jury on a computer for a day with low-key words that, while not indicative of this type of illegal smut, seem to for some reason end up with a million pop-up banners. Then let's see what's in that PC's cache.
Internet porn laws, saving hundreds of children from innocent users everyday - phorm
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
You are not against machines enforcing the code. You are against the code itself.
Most people who think speed limits should not be enforced by automated photoradar also think that the speed limits are unreasonably low. And I agree.
The Right Thing(tm) is to fix the stupid laws. There are several minor things such as jaywalking that should not be considered offences. However, I am all for automated enforcement when people run red lights, etc.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Can't remember the name of the story though.
- adam
When Law Enforcement Machines Attack!
FBI's Kristen Sheldon ... testified that an IP address is, "in very simple terms, a Social Security number. Only one person at one specific time can have that number."
Apparently the FBI has never heard of NAT's
I heard on the radio that the fine for running a red light and getting caught on camera is $273. Talk about a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. And I keep hearing that they shorten the yellow light in order to steal our money through these fraudulent citations.
Nowadays, it seems as if more and more law enforcement is being done by machines. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be up to the job.
I thought we had already gotten rid of that "computer's fault" argument. Well, the same goes for any other type of machine, it doesn't have a free will so it can't be held accountable.
Machines do exactly what they are constructed to do, and they are wery good at it!
It's the people who run those machines that are "not up to the job".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'll bet it's real easy to spoof the speed traps into handing out false tickets with something like an electric fan. Just think, every time a politician drives by...
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Nice list of items, I know that people can take a speeding ticket to court and contest it even if the evidence says that they were indeed speeding.
I think (IANAL) that the 1st amendment with the freedom of religion.
I think it is just that if the government was giving breaks to one religion over another it would look like they were sponsoring it and that it was for somereason better than the rest.
I think this is what people may refer to when they talk about seperation of church and state, but IANAL(but my sister may be one in July).
Given the amount of gridlock in many cities, I would very much welcome red light cameras. People driving into the intersection when they shouldn't are a major nuisance.
However, to prevent abuses, ownership and revenue from such systems has to be handled correctly. The systems should be owned and operated by non-police city employees, and any excess revenue should go to the state government, not the city.
Also, such automatic enforcement should never be used for significant fines and it should not lead to "points" on your license either--a mistake on a $50 or $100 ticket is something most people can live with--stuff happens. But losing your license or paying $1000s more in insurance is another matter and really should require more careful determination of guilt (like, who the driver really was).
In my country (Belgium) these machines are really breaking through. Many crossroads are equipped with radar/cameras making pictures of cars driving through red lights and cars speeding. One of the problems that occured is the limited number of pictures that can be put on a film - this film must be replaced manually! - making that after a couple of hours these films are full. They solved it ... by using bigger films. Yesterday the government announced that, after a "minor" change in the software these cameras would be able to register other infractions as well: driving over a white line for example.
An interesting point is that since these devices were installed these crossroads actualy have become safer. And the politicians that put these things in place still are quite popular.
The law is in no way code in the sense of "source code". Perhaps you are being confused by the usage of the word "code" which is sometimes used in a legal context.
A machine will not let you off of a speeding ticket if you are caught racing to take your wife to the hospital while she is in the throes of labor. It wont sit with your runaway son at a soda fountain while you come to fetch him. They dont have judgement.
The law is made by people and for people. It needs to be flexible, malleable and powered by human compassion and understanding.
If there are not enough people to manage (not enforce) it then we need more police not machines to take thier place. Certainly, if money can be constantly found to bomb other countries and pay trillions for the arms that they need to do it, this is a realistic option.
Anyone that has been cought by a speed camera at 4AM on a country road knows this to be true, by experience. Giving autonamous machines the power to enforce the law is a very bad idea.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
The software behind the cameras will do whatever you tell it to do. If someone decides the cameras should racially profile for some reason, they can be made to do it. (E.g., in principle, they could be told something like this: "If there are too many people in view to spy on them all at once, process the data for dark-skinned people first.") Cameras may not be racist, but they don't have a conscience, either.
Plus there's the issue of where the cameras are installed. I expect we'll just happen to see a lot more of them installed in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. Note that I'm not saying that this is ipso facto the wrong choice, if that's where your city's street crime happens to be. But the fact that City X's cameras don't preferentially spy on black people instead of white people matters less if they're installed only in 99%-black neighborhoods.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
nyc
at the U of Tenn and is very active in tech rights issues, as well as being one of the most popular bloggers around.
And I believe he claims to be a Libertarian.. rather than a Republican as suggested elsewhere (what, there are more than two parties in this country?!)
http://www.s4biturbo.com/
Did you hear what I wrote about the neighborhoods? They won't put them in neighborhoods.
And keep in mind that governing bodies have an official policy of neutrality; they're not going to build AIs that aren't neutral.
By the way, there's another way that the algorithms are a "colorblind": skin detection algorithms detect everyone as almost exactly the same skin color (but with different intensity). (One notable exception is asiatic skin tones, which are slightly different - but only slightly - almost not even statistically different).
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
We already have that in the UK :-)
An acquaintance has been told by his boyfriend's parents not to see him, and if said boyfriend appears on the CCTVs in that part of town (where acquaintance works) it will go badly for him :-(
Boyfriend's web page is very gushing (of course he is now banned from net) but who knows what may happen?
I think it would be most sensible to wait until he leaves home of course. But does the CCTV culture here make people change their courses of action?
Is this specifically designed to kill pedestrians?
In the UK, when a pedestrian crossing says "cross" (or rather there is a green man there), it is safe to cross. In the US this is not the case it seems; everywhere is a game of Frogger/Freeway. And crossing at other places is illegal (jaywalking) apparently!
A society where law is code, is no longer a *human* society. Strict laws do not really fix the problems. They are human problems, which requires human solutions. When you treat humans inhumanly, they become inhuman. You don't want that, because that is the end of our civilisation. We are human beings, not machines.
Look at USA today. The privatization of jail-camps has made it attractive to have a jailhouse near your city. It creates workplaces and steady income, thus halting the problem of urbanisation for a while. What it has created, is a monster. Now, more people in the US are jailed than in any other country! It has created a boom in the industry, and the police is litterally forced to jail more people in order to keep that boom going. Jailhouses are being built before there are even one prisoner to fill them!! Many jailhouses in the US are empty, demanding an further increases in prisoner-population. The prisoners themselves are litterally slaves, a very cheap workforce for the community. USA, the land of the free, indeed. Pride will eventually fall into the opposite it seems.
Now USA is the land of the slaves and it is constantly creating frustrated prisoners that will eventually come back into society where they will vent out their frustration and abuse.
The so-called solution to the problems, prison, is feeding on the further problems it creates => more prisoners, by privatization. It's people's income. It's really very, very, very sick.
It is not too late. Start treating people humanly, and you break the cycle.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I believe that you believe all of this is true of the Orlando project. You know more about it than I do. I hope it remains true, and I hope it will be true for all other similar projects. I just don't think it will (in the general case, I mean); once the tech is in place, the smart money says that it will be abused eventually.
OK, that's interesting, and I didn't know it. I don't think it changes much, though. If my eyes can tell the difference, a computer's eyes will be able to tell the difference -- if not now, then some day.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
"Over in High Point, North Carolina, lawyer Marshall Hurley is trying to make a judge see things similarly, but may have a tougher go of it in what appears to be the most ethically-compromised system in the nation. High Point contracts with Electronic Data Systems, which subcontracts with PEEK Traffic. A big, happy family, the three entities have formed SafeLight. If a High Point citizen wants to appeal a photo ticket, he first has to pay a $50 "bond" (presumption of innocence be damned). But when a motorist heads into traffic adjudication, he meets not a judge or even a lawyer, but rather a college professor, hired to appear disinterested in the outcome. The professors are paid from the funds generated by red-light camera tickets, and the hearings are held not in court, but at SafeLight's offices, a fact that even a disinterested professor might find interesting. "
....." Well, that's 3 on 1 ..No thanks, I'll take a jury.
Of course, the system is always weighted against the common citizen. I once decided to fight a ticket and I'm in Missouri so all matters that could cost me more than $20 allow me to have a jury present (in the state constitution). So the judge ask me if I want to waive my right to jury? I ask him "Who pays your salary?" he says "The state". "Who pays the prosecutors salary?" "The state". "Who pays the police officers salary?" "The state". "What does my case read?" "The state V
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
...and that's all I have to say about that.
Where I live the traffic gurus have decided that the longer the light the better. 6,7,8 minutes are the norm. No Joke. 8 minute red lights. Get stuck at a few of them and you can see why people blow through them. You might not make it home in time for dinner, or next week for that matter.
And then we have this zero tolerance nonsense where cops only roost to write tickets where and if local neighbors complain regardless of the actual traffic situation. Since the cops are 'invited' there they write everyone for any violation - 2-3mph over is the thresshold.
So the net effect is that higway drivers are at least 15mph over the limit on average (and the limit around here is 65-70) and local traffic is stopped. Just stopped. Total complete endless refugee gridlock.
I mean, why would we convict people who robbed convenience stores based on security camera footage? Security cameras aren't real people!
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The UK has a proliferation of speed and traffic light cameras.
The later I agree with having been almost in collision with drivers who have jumped the lights both at the start and end of the sequence. Here in the UK the sequence is red, red+amber, green, amber red. The rules of the road state the following meanings:
o Red means stop
o Amber means stop if it is safe to do so
o Green means proceed if it is safe to do so.
So you shouldn't enter an intersection if you'll just block it.
We also have what's known as a box junction. These have yellow hashing on the road and you are only allowed to enter the box if your exit is clear. In London they have started putting cameras on these too.
As for speed cameras. Many of these are inappropriately set and positioned. The speed someone drives at should be appropriate to the road and conditions. A motor/freeway with a speed limit of 70mph doesn't mean you should drive at 70mph in the rain and fog on that road. Cameras don't generally take advantage of this.
There is one exception. The London orbital motorway has cameras linked to the speed limit which is adjustable with road conditions. These are fair.
Our older cameras use film which run out. There was also a problem that you need to identify the driver as well as the car and the old cameras point at the rear of the car. New digital cameras have been introduced which can fine you before you even realise (using image recognition to read the number/licence plate). These point at the front of the car to recognise the driver.
There are a small number of individuals who have a campaign against cameras, they spray the lenses, set fire to them and in some cases cut through the pole with a grinder and steal them!
As for me. I'm a biker. By pulling along side a car while going through the camera zone you can confuse it. You can dummy them in to taking pictures of the car behind. The new digital ones are useless as bikes don't have a front plate and can't see your face through your visor (full face helmet of course). I have some friends who purposely set them off by wheelying at speed through the camera zone with digitus impudicous aloft. There must be many of these photos laying on police desks. Finally, it's stupid, but the fine for not having a licence plate on your vehicle is less that the one for speeding and it doesn't affect your driving licence, so if you plan on having some fun, take it off.
Business is all about providing maximum profit for minimum expenditure.
Can you say "Rent-A-Cop"?
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Dude, I don't care who taught you physics, but in ENGINEERING we learned that a standard automobile is not designed to run at 140MPH. Where where your roll bars? How about the 5 point belt? Your nomex suit? I'm curious as to how you managed to calibrate your tires to the road surface over a distance of 2 states?
How about the fact that your braking distance is measured in MILES at that speed, and even if you saw trouble you would be lucky to be down to a speed where your air bag might actually do you some good?
All the training in the world cannot help a ninja dodge a bullet. A little card in your wallet does not exempt you from the laws of physics.
(This coming from a wreck diver, with a little card from NAUI saying that I am qualified to do it. When I go down, I have a map of the wreck in my mind, a buddy or 10, a person trained on administering oxygen or 2 in the party, and a radio to call the coast guard in an emergency. Not to mention all of the safety/rescue gear that is strapped to me and my dive companions.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Are these machines ever calibrated?
What is their failure rate?
I would refuse to give into a ticket from one of these unless I had knoledge of both.
You reminded me of something OT, but funny.
Back in the 80's somebody wrote a program to act like a rosiarian psychologist. Someone else wrote a program to act like a paranoid patient. These were done separately, but someone had the bright idea to hook them together and see what happened.
In the end, they took the printouts and some actual transcripts of real psychologists and patients to some PhDs, and they couldn't tell which ones were the computers and which ones were real.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
The camera is color blind, only if you make it so. The system could possibly increase the likelihood of reporting something as violent because of the skin color.
Mark
In the UK there are several organised groups going around destroying speed cameras, such as MAD (Motorists Against Detection). (You can take a look at http://www.speedcam.co.uk/welcome.htm ).
It is a general feeling that speed cameras are not being used to improve safety, but as a means of raising extra revenue (i.e. tax) for the government. Indeed a lot of people feel that speed cameras cause accidents as everyone slams on the brakes to avoid getting caught by the cameras (often "hidden" behind trees or road signs) and immediately speeds up again afterwards. I know I do!
What's the goverment's response to this? Well it's to have a huge increase in the number of speed cameras. (Sorry I don't have the figures to hand, but it's a lot).
MAD are not an isolated group, there are several groups around the country, they are probably just the best known.
More stories, here and here.
If they send me a photo of my car running a red light I will send them a picture of the money I owe!
People [I] like to advertise their fast cars/motorcycles.
"Hey look! It can't go past 99!"
I love the way you blamed you failure to install an automated system (which may or may not have worked, anyway) for your failure to proofread your own post. Brilliant!
You do self-hate (or if you are not an American, anti-americanism) so well that it hurts!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
they're simply tools to help people do a particular job better or more efficiently. However, humans, for some reason, are tempted to trust automation quite readily.
I hope judges understand this principle when applying scrutiny to so-called evidence produced by these things.
Good math teachers have always been telling us to check our work. We have to be able to prove through our own intelligence why the answer to exam question 5a is 30. Justifying your answer by saying "that's what the computer/calculator told me" isn't typically good enough, nor should it be. Especially if someone's liberty is at stake.
The company I work for uses a standard personality and abstract reasoning test as part of the interview process. What we found is that, rather than the personality test being only one of four or five different tools a manager should be using to evaluate an applicant, some lazy HR/Manager types were basing hiring decisions solely on the results of the psych test.
Frequently (and I bet many of you can relate to this) I get questions from managers and directors asking how technology can solve their personnel issues. Sometimes it's not easy to make them understand that simply because their employees are misusing the tools at their disposal (PCs, Internet Access, phones, etc) doesn't mean the tool is at fault and has to be modified.
I guess the moral of the story is that we should be helping our PHBs understand that humans are the answer. Tools can help us do it better or faster, but they, by themselves, are not the solution.
is the fact that they are serviced and operated by independant contractors. What's more, the gov pays them per ticket, so they actually have incentive to issue more tickets. The whole is very not kosher.
I had a friend in law school who got a red light ticket, and was going to argue it in court (as a sort of indpendent research project). He heard, however, that most judges came down hard on people who tried to play Matlock.
What the Hell is this Russia?!?!?
Why have them there if nothing is happening?
Prevention.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Actually, drivers must yield to pedestrians at all times, and right on red requires a complete stop at the light before turning right. It's not like the red light can simply be ignored by right-turn drivers, and not stopping before turning earns the same citation as running the light straight through.
Virg
Given the current laws, anyone speeding on a country road at 4AM should be given a ticket. It is the fact that police officers selectively enforce laws that make them so bad in the first place. If laws were enforced to the letter, to anyone violating them, there would be no more bad laws very quickly.
Imagine if everyone in Virginia who committed sodomy (defined as anal OR oral sex) was arrested and convicted of a felony. Imagine if everyone who didn't disassemble their car when being passed by a horse-drawn buggy in Pennsylvania were arrested. Imagine if everyone who made a mix CD of love songs for their high school crush were arrested.
These laws would be repealed, immediately. As some old dead white guy said (perhaps Franklin), "The best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them."
Unfortunately, the current way that laws are enforced means that police can selectively pick and choose who to arrest/fine for various crimes in order to keep the public relatively passive.
So yeah - computer enforcement of speeding laws is a good thing. Although, I am sorry for the first few million unfortunate drivers who will get fines before the law is repealed.
-Alison
That was a "Rogerian" psychologist.
The psychologist program was named Doctor.
The paranoid program was named Parry.
They were both descendants of Eliza.
(I.e., not all that much intelligence was involved on either side.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Send us a picture of your arrest record, or maybe a mug shot.
Virg
They cut it from the article's head.
Please don't plagerize.
odd that the page cited in the post, and almost all of the subsequent reference pages all come from conservative news sources. hmmm...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
... is one of personal jurisdiction and legal venue.
Statutes are written by the legislature in order to handle common problems. In the case of jaywalking, for example, the offense is created so that if one _causes and accident_ when one is jaywalking, then one can be held liable.
The same can be said of speeding, red lights, the list goes on.
It goes to the old adage: No victim, no crime.
I recognize that it may be dangerous to run red lights, but when I am coming home from a long trip and it is 2am, I am not going to wait at the longest light in town when there is no one on the horizon.
State legislatures also have jurisdiction over the activities of artificial persons - corporations, engaged in commerce within the state. The police power being exercised here is the regulation of activities of "persons" who do not possess the same rights as men. If you research the source of driver's license statutes and motor vehicle registration, you will find that the "person" being regulated is a common carrier who transports goods or passengers for hire.
CONgress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Driver's licenses and traffic laws found in Title 49 of the United States Code have been adopted by the states. Otherwise, these offenses would be tried in federal district court. So CONgress grants authority to the states to handle registration and licensing of interstate carriers - the CDL.
Another legal venue would be the current state of law martial rule stemming from the various and sundry declarations of national emergency published in the Federal Register. Because we are under martial law, and have been so since March 6 of 1933, the people can be regulated under the rule of necessity to impose peace and safety by the military occupant.
Be that as it may, even if automated enforcement notices me, I will not receive a summons in the mail, because my car's tag says: NOT FOR HIRE / PRIVATE PROPERTY / NO TRESPASSING. I do not see how they could get my mailing location from that.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
... idiots with power.
No. Those laws are left on the books because it is difficult to challenge them, and because they are sometimes quite useful when the authorities decide to "get" someone, and don't have any legitimate reason.
I didn't say good, I said and meant useful. And the ones that they are useful to are the ones that would need to remove them. Perhaps actual enforcement would be desireable, because it might eventually get rid of them. The cost would, however, be a bit high.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
License plate protector
I wrote an article on Kuro5hin that addresses many of these concerns, specifically related to traffic law enforcement. Give it a read..
WTF are you talking about? While I, unlike you, can only comment on personal experiences. Every Jail/Prison that has gone up in my state was because of the MASSIVE OVERCROWDING of prisons. Now I'm not talking about why they are overcrowded, just showing you the error in "It has created a boom in the industry, and the police is litterally forced to jail more people in order to keep that boom going. Jailhouses are being built before there are even one prisoner to fill them!! Many jailhouses in the US are empty,...". This is so much crap I want to puke. We have had prisoners bring lawsuits against the Govt because they were stacking 4 to 6 prisoners in an area ment for 2 (2 beds, toliet,sink, etc). The fact is the majority (something like 90% +) of prisons are overcrowded. Please if your going to rant, at least make it intelligent.
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
I have to drive through the Town of Paradise Valley, AZ to get anywhere from my home. I also get a copy of their newspaper.
Paradise Valley (a Phoenix suburb) was the first city in the US to use photo-radar. And in spite of the gunfire attack on it (mentioned in the referenced article) they still operate it every day from small SUV's. They have also installed a stop-light system.
What makes their photo-radar so objectionable is that PV has lower speed limits on through streets through this little town than adjoining cities have on the same streets - even though the streets in PV are *safer* to go fast on. The speed limit on four lane divided road with relatively few side roads is 40mph. In Phoenix, it is 45 on the same roads. PV also has along standing attitude (it is the richest community in Arizona) that folks from other towns shouldn't drive through PV (even though it squats on two im-portant mountain passes in the middle of the metro area.
When the PV photo radar is challenged, they fight just long enough to make the costs more than the cost of the ticket, but always give in before an appeal which could rule it illegal!
The radars are operated by a vendor who gets a cut in the proceeds. I believe that the reason they have to have a person in the vehicle with the radar is to prevent the radar from being destroyed.
There is no doubt in my mind that the only purposes of the radars are:
1 - to discourage people from driving through the town
2 - to enhance town revenues
Oh, BTW... radar detectors are useless against the speed radar. It runs extremely low power and looks at traffic from a 22.5 degree angle. You *might* get one signal out of the detector if you are right behind someone who gets hit. Otherwise, no luck.
Many people here warn other motorists in oncoming lanes by flashing their lights after passing the radar. I wish more did.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I don't know if the boxes were rigged in San Diego, but the lights sure were. In intersections where we have red-light cameras, the yellow lights are quite short. In traffic school (where red-light ticketees go to remove the penalty from their record), you learn that "yellow means stop, unless it is unsafe to stop". A green light meens "proceed if it is safe to do so, and if you see green for a while, be prepared to stop" (aka "rolling red"). Most people don't know this and interpret yellow as "go faster to avoid the red". The people who get cuaght are the ones that didn't go quite fast enough or reacted too slowly or (in many cases) weren't paying close enough attention until the last few seconds when a light changes.
Yellow lights (some friends say "it was orange!") are one of those gray enforcement areas like speeding. Alot of people do it and you can't have enough cops everywhere to enforce it. No harm, no foul. No witness, no foul.
People generally don't go through red lights. They stop knowing that they are recklessly in the wrong if they don't and could cause harm. Instead of trying to stop unsafe yellow rushing, perhaps traffic engineers should just add more time to red on each side to give the inersection a little time to clear and set a hard boundary between fuzzy law and blatant violators. Perhaps afer that, the absolute unforgiving machines have a better success at enforcing absolute laws.
Note: I don't run red lights. While the red light cameras were in operation, I'd reflexively stop on yellow. This would sometimes frustrate the people behind me. That's the effect of this program on me.
John Ashcroft *is* the definition of a machine.
I disagree.
:-)
The worst thing you can have is a single-source monopoly. It sucks in the software industry. It sucks when looking for cable service. It sucks when shopping for telephone service.
If your organization is the only provider of a particular type of goods or services, you can abuse your customers at will, and they will keep coming back, because they have no choice.
Bringing this back on-topic, some of the worst monopolies are the government-run ones. That's why public school systems are often lousy. Why should fire and police service be an exception to this rule?
If EvilTwinSkippy is suggesting the replacement of a government monopoly with a single-source government-contracted private agency, I agree: it will still suck.
What would improve the situation where individuals and corporations are free to contract their police service from any company they think offers the best value.
Some of these "Rent-A-Cop" outfits will be poor, and others excellent. And you can read "Consumer Reports" to see which one offers the best deal.
You know that if you don't do it now while you still can, there will be a day when you can't.
Hell even I've seen that movie, and I'm not a big sci-fi freak.
Based on the timeline in those films, the bots will take over in 50 years, and the last time we'll have been able to kill them all will be in about 25 years.
but someone makes a robot that cares for humans, and he kills all the robots.
So I suggest you start now at building the robot that cares, or you start now at killing all the robots.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
I disagree.
You see, when was the last time the government actually provided a service AND kept it profitable? They NEVER lay anyone off and only raise our taxes to foot the bill. The USPS lost so many billions of dollars last year - ever hear of one postal worker getting laid off? No! Why would you want a bigger government? Bigger government not only breeds higher taxes but also allows them to control more of your life. Here in my state, we have a seatbelt law. Why? Why does it matter whether or not I wear a seatbelt (I do, of course)?
My two cents..
Michael
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
I read a while back, where someone jerkoff posted some anecdotal evidence of something a person apparently read, but couldn't remember the name of what he read, or any of the specifics about the story.
Can't remember where that happened though,...
So have you ever had the nerve to judge the road clear and cross the street? Ever seen and used a stop sign? How about simply crossed the street, gasp, where there is no cross gaurd? It's people like you telling us that we can't think for ourselves that sell us this crap.
Issues of due process are being ignored as people's time and money are taken on the basis of flawed, imperfect and even fruadulent evidence. Sorry, that sucks and only a slave would desires it. We have only courts to protect us from such violations, but they will follow public oppinion eventually.
Fight this BS now. Robots are no good at law enforcement and never will be.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Haven't you heard of the concept of justice without mercy? There is such a thing...and a simple binary decision on whether a law has been violated or not would in most cases constitute such. Watch an episode of Law and Order sometime if you want to know just how convoluted the law can be, and how necessary it often is to have dynamic interpretations of it. Every case is different, and open and shut cases virtually don't exist.
In mass production there is a human to monitor and/or control the machines.
The problem with absolute automation is defects.
Take the now famous red light camras. They go off when the light is yellow or occasionally green.
If a larg vehical blocks your view of the light and it runs a red if you folow the camra gets you.
Alternitivly you could catch a ticket for impeding traffic by waiting for the buss to get out of the way and let you verify the light really is green.
Thies storys go on for days.
I like the camras but don't give them the power to issue tickets. Just use the system for statistical sampling. Then place a live officer at the worst spots during the worst times.
I don't actually exist.
I agree with your preceding bits, but...
Why does it matter whether or not I wear a seatbelt
If you're in an accident you can hurt other people in a number of ways:
physically - other people in the car can be injured by you bouncing around
emotionally - your friends/family will (presumably) be upset
financially - the community bears the cost of police investigations, coroners courts etc. I seem to remember that each road fatality cost around $AU300,000.
It's not necessarily all about you!
Graham
Graham