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."
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.
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
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.
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.
I do not know a SINGLE biker here in Germany who has ever gotten a red light ticket.
.de requires the govt to have proof that a) the car and b) an identifiable person has commited the red light/speeding offense. For that purpose the cams around here make a FRONT shot of the offending vehicle, which gives you a clear view of the license plate AND the driver.
.de) horsepower/displacement on your machine is limited for the first few years of your license, and while there really are people who take revenge against cameras, bikers are those hit least.
Legalese in
If there is only the plate visible, you can talk yourself out of it if you're lucky. If they only see your face, they won't even get you at all.
How many bikers Do you know that have a license plate in FRONT of their rides? And exactly how good are you at recognizing people when they wear a helmet? See, there is nothing bikers have to worry about (except for laser pistols that don't take pictures but relay the measurements to the patrol car parked around the next corner.
While it is absolutely correct that (at least here in
+++ath0
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.
"how useless it is" ?
It's getting people to drive legally without issuing tickets.
Doesn't sound useless to me...
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
If I don't hurt anyone, an I committing a crime?
Extreme example. I take a gun, walk up to a house and random, and fire a bullet through the front door. This is the act , what I do.
There are two possible consequences .
In both cases, the act is the same. I decided to do something, something that was dangerous. But the consequences were very different.
I think in most countries the act by itself would be a crime.
This is an extreme example, but I think it invalidates the argument "but is he hurting anyone?" Travelling at high speed on the public road puts other people at risk, speed limits are intended to reduce that risk to an acceptable level. If you do half again the speed limit, you are putting those around you at a much higher risk, and that should be illegal.
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
The UK has had red light cameras for a few years, along with speed cameras. Since the police are allowed to keep the fine money raised, they are really enthusistic about these things.
Of course, they are sold as a Road safety enhancement to the public, since "Speed Kills", although the majority of road accidents are caused by driver error. There is a argument that we now get more accidents, as people brake hard to slow down for the camara, and rear end shunts follow.....
The original speed cameras were rear facing, and you would get a letter asking you who was driving the car when the photo was taken. For a time, you could use the Human Rights Act, and refuse to incriminate yourself. Now the law has stated that Road Safety trumps the right to not self incriminate. Now, you just have to "not remember".
To get around this, we have forward facing cameras coming in now to take a picture of the driver as well. Motorcycles won't be spotted then, as they don't have front facing license plates.
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.
This should be modded -1 Stupid. If 99 out of 100 citizens get ticketed every time they drive cross-town, you can bet both the system and the politicians that were stupid enough to implement it will be collecting unemployment within a month. Make that a week if the mayor is the first one tagged. BTW, whatever happened to the right to face one's accuser? I seem to remember 20 years or so ago a Minnesota district court tossing out thousands of automated speeding tickets on that basis (the accuser being an automated system that was acting as judge, jury and jailor), and that fact that one could prove the car was speeding, but couldn't prove who was driving it.
Lee Kaiwen Taiwan, ROC
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