Slashdot Mirror
State Legislators Want Surveillance Cameras To Catch Uninsured Drivers (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica:
A Rhode Island legislative committee has approved a bill that would greatly expand the surveillance state through the deployment of license plate readers. For the first time in the US, these devices would be attached along Rhode Island highways and roads for the stated purpose of catching uninsured motorists from any state... The legislation spells out that the contractor for the project would get 50 percent of the fines paid by uninsured motorists ensnared under the program. The state and the contractor would each earn an estimated $15 million annually. Fines are as high as $120.
Many police departments nationwide are using surveillance cameras tacked onto traffic poles and police vehicles to catch traffic violators and criminal suspects. The proceeds from traffic fines usually are divvied up with contractors. But according to the Rhode Island lawmaker sponsoring this legislation, it's time to put surveillance cameras to a new purpose -- fining uninsured motorists.
Many police departments nationwide are using surveillance cameras tacked onto traffic poles and police vehicles to catch traffic violators and criminal suspects. The proceeds from traffic fines usually are divvied up with contractors. But according to the Rhode Island lawmaker sponsoring this legislation, it's time to put surveillance cameras to a new purpose -- fining uninsured motorists.
since it puts too big of a burden on illegals. We tried something like this here in CA, but it was racist in effect so the people running it should have been put in prison.
and has nothing to do with making a bunch of money
If it's anything like red light cameras, the answer to all questions is "pay the fine, no right to trial, no appeals process of any kind".
I find that the most appalling part of systems like this. They bypass all the usual constitutional protections, and effectively impose a tax at the whim of the state (since if it's a civil or criminal matter, you have constitutional rights to a trial). So it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a process of any kind to challenge the system if it's mistaken about whether you have insurance.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Here in Florida, many of the patrol cars have the license plate reading cameras and they are active all the time soaking up plates that the car passes and running them. That is a much wider surveillance effort than a few fixed cameras. The reason for the few fixed cameras approach is to get a kickback instead of keeping the funds fully in the state's hands. I'm sure the company's lobbyist approached somebody, not vice versa.
The financial incentive for contractors has to end. If the state is fining uninsured drivers, I have far less of a problem with it. But when law enforcement becomes a corporate profit center, it gives corporations power they shouldn't have. The same goes for for-profit prisons. If any state wants to put someone in jail, the taxpayers should have to shoulder that entire burden.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Here in the UK, traffic cameras are a common means of detecting road traffic offences, be it speeding or uninsured or untaxed vehicles - the registered keeper gets a notice of intent to prosecute sent to them and they have three options:
1. admit the offence, accept the points and fine (or any offered alternative)
2. respond with the drivers details if someone else was driving, and the offence was either speeding or uninsured vehicle
3. contest the offence, which means going to court
Its a decent system and it works - the DVLA knows if a vehicle is taxed, the Motor Insurance Database knows if a vehicle is insured (there are exceptions to this - you can get policies which cover you as a driver on any vehicle, which means the vehicle would be covered and you just respond to the notice of prosecution with proof). Of course drivers don't like the system, but it does work :)
I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!
If you don't provide the DMV proof of insurance you cannot renew your vehicle's registration. Then you must either file a PNO (planned non-operation) or transfer your vehicle. If you do not pay the fines, your license is suspended. If you drive with expired registration, there are some fines and you are usually caught pretty quickly. If you drive without insurance and are caught, there are some fines. If you drive without a license, you can be arrested.
None of this required camears. It's all about having the proper chain of paperwork in place, and the enforcement is handled by a combination of DMV notices and police officers. It becomes pretty obvious that you have troubles with the DMV when your drivers license and plates are expired.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
A significant part of the horrified reaction comes from the part about 'the contractor gets 50%" of revenue generated. In the US there are -at least formally- limits to what an agency of the state can get away with, (appearances must be maintained) such limits are not perceived to apply to private contractors.
apropos: $CAPTCHA=='slowdown'
Drivers are insured, not motor vehicles. How will they know from a photo of a plate whether that particular driver has current insurance?
Have gnu, will travel.
Here in the UK, traffic cameras are a common means of detecting road traffic offences, be it speeding or uninsured or untaxed vehicles - the registered keeper gets a notice of intent to prosecute sent to them and they have three options:
There was a problem with a guy who skipped paying bridge tolls in California, he removed his plate. And skipped paying hundreds of times before the police finally recognized his rather rare sports car.
And in the US, states don't share information with other states freely. So if all you have is a camera shot of an out-of-state license plate, it's a bit of work to track down the owner. It's been a real problem for charging tourists for crossing the Golden Gate Bridge. There are still a few states left that can get through the tolls, others have setup a voluntary exchange to catch Californians running stop lights and speeding in other states.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
One of the biggest problems we in the U.S. have with systems like this is that it pushes the burden of proof onto the accused. That is unacceptable here.
The cameras, the connections, and the back-end storage and processing are relatively inexpensive now.
The cops should be running their own camera systems from a COTS solution, put a tech on the police payroll, and then keep 100% of the revenue rather than paying an ongoing percentage to an outside company to do something that it now essentially technically trivial.
And it's not a surveillance state if you can keep the cops to merely scanning wanted plates instead of tracking everyone. If you're breaking the law, they should be looking for you. (The problem is stopping them from looking for you when you're NOT breaking the law... data is always used against you)
It probably varies state to state but in AZ, your car is listed on your insurance. While the liability insurance is for you operating a vehicle, and applies even if you drive another car, your car is still listed on your insurance paperwork. It also helps determine the rate. If you have a high performance car, you are going to pay higher liability insurance than someone with an econobox.
So if you found a car driving around, and couldn't find a record for its insurance, good chance the owner is uninsured. It is possible that they are and just neglected to add this particular car (though that could mean the policy wouldn't cover them, which would make them effectively uninsured) but more likely they don't have insurance.
Not saying I support this spy cam crap (particularly since a private company is running and as with speed cameras they'll try to game it) but it would be something where if you run a car's plate and it comes back as not in the system 99%+ of the time it is being driven by an uninsured driver.
I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!
It's not the punishing illegal acts but the intrusion of government. Americans tend to dislike government monitoring them, something that goes back to a time when some guy named George kept trying to keep tabs on them. That instilled a mistrust of government, amongst other things, that still runs deep in the American mindset.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"Because we know the excuse they're using is just bullshit. Once in place, the sky's the limit on what they'll really be used for."
You mean you won't be able to break other laws as well?
No, it's the temptation to collectvand use The data for other things that don't involve illegal acts. Use it to gets and delete data from complaints rivers, fine, but once government has the data then the temptation to keep it is too great. In addition, a private company would no doubt see additional dollars in selling the data for commercial purposes. Data is power, especially now with the growth of big data, so concerns over what is collected, who has access, and how it is used are valid. Of course, a can of spray paint is an effective way to monkey wrench these devices.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
That's what worries me most about this: the personal information in the database that would of course immediately be stolen. If literally ANY traffic cam can access it, how long will it take the identity thieves?
If the license plate readers retain the info they collect even after they've made their assessment of insurance, then the system becomes one big movement tracker. Anyone in government will have a handy record of where you went and when. We've already got something like that on a limited scale in my city, but a system like this would kick that into overdrive.
The contractor is being paid 50% of the revenue because there is no money to paid them a fix amount upfront.
Because the people won't vote to authorize the government to finance such systems through a bond measure or property assessment or any of the other myriad ways revenue is raised for infrastructure projects. So, government does it anyway by doing an end-run around the will of the constituents. Because those "government by the people, for the people" and "by the consent of the governed" tropes have been mostly lip-service concerning anything that really matters for decades.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Well. If that is the mindset,why are they not using their second amendement rights to fight about everything since 2001.
NSA and FBI does actual spying on the US citizens and havge admitted as much in court.
And all I see is the equivilent of a kid moaning he can't have a cookie. Sure, the kid is whining, but still no cookie and after a while you get used to the whining.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There is some moral ground to object on as well but it's pretty slim in my mind and I wouldn't let it stand in the way of establishing such a system where I live, albeit without a contractor taking a cut.
My moral concern is that the drivers which would, in my completely fail able guess, bear the brunt of these fines would be the poor. I know for myself as a member of the middle class that my insurance rates are just one of the necessary expenses of owning a car and that expense isn't worth trying to dodge. However there are plenty of people who are in dire enough financial straights that insurance premiums become worth dodging because feeding your kids and having running water is more important than the risk of not having insurance. To make matters even sillier large segments of the poor population seem to be unfairly targeted by various insurance companies for higher rates, Propublica has an article on the problem.