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."

Comments

The weak link is still people

[PFactor]

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.

personally I don't want ANY machines.

[garcia]

machines are too easy to deploy in large numbers to stop simple violations (speeding, jaywalking, stop sign rolling, etc).

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 .02

Re:personally I don't want ANY machines.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

If the cop isn't there to see it then tough noogies for them. I got away w/a minor violation.

I don't like the machines either but I don't think running a red light is a "minor" violation at all. It's the arrogance of most drivers that they can make that judgement that leads to awful collisions.

On the other hand, I don't see why people are allowed to drive in the first place. In a century of automotive engineering, the only part of the car we have not massively improved -- and made massively safer -- is the driver.

Re:personally I don't want ANY machines.

[falloutboy]

"machines are too easy to deploy in large numbers to stop simple violations (speeding, jaywalking, stop sign rolling, etc)."
and
"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."

Just because you broke the law when nobody was looking doesn't mean you didn't break the law. Are you also against cameras in banks/grocery stores/gas stations that record robberies?

If you're against a law and believe that a certain action should not be illegal, then do something about it. Write your congressman. Petition. Demonstrate. Or even -- gasp -- run for office yourself. But don't say its okay to break a law just because no one is looking.

Re:personally I don't want ANY machines.

[Have Blue]

You make about as convincing an argument as Homer Simpsons putting his hands over his eyes and shouting "If I don't see it it's not illegal!", and the course of action you suggest will have about the same consequences as Homer's too.

The law is code; it should be enforced by machines

[0xdeadbeef]

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.

Re:The law is code; it should be enforced by machi

[mamba-mamba]

The law is code; it should be enforced by machines

There's a problem with this.

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

Re:The solution

[Kaiwen]

In a city that purchases my systems, only one person out of 100 that tries to get from one end of town to the other will be able to do so without having at least one ticket logged against them. I will make city revenue problems a thing of the past.

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

Re: Private Sector Police

[EvilTwinSkippy]

BTW privatizing any public service is a shitty idea.

Business is all about providing maximum profit for minimum expenditure.

Can you say "Rent-A-Cop"?