Law Enforcement by Machines 354
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... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:2)
The solution (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:The solution (Score:3, Funny)
Wiggum: alright Lou, send in the swat-bot
(female robot comes in house, sprays taffy on fighting Simpson family, then drags them to front door)
Wiggum: okay boys, take 'em away,
the swat-bot: NO WAY! this is MY job!
Wiggum: (switches robot off) Too bad real women dont come with one of these.
Re:The solution (Score:2)
"NO WAY! this is MY job!"
That would be:
"NO WAY! this is MY collar!"
Happy to help out...
Re:The solution (Score:2, Funny)
I can design and implement an automated traffic ticketing system. I'm not far from a system that does the same thing with automatically recording license plate numbers and monitoring parking durations for the purpose of automatic parking ticket issuance. A little further on the horizon (but if there's money to made, I'm willing to build and market it) is a facial recognition system for the automatic issuance of littering, jaywalking, loitering, and panhandling tickets.
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.
Re:The solution (Score:4, Insightful)
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:The solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Folks, our job is to follow the law and let the police focus on nabbing the real criminals out there.
I am one of those luddites who use those stubby things for walking. People in general drive like ass, and most are blissfully ignorant of how often they nearly kill themselves or other people. Nothing is funnier than hearing a suit or a soccer mom try to explain that the accident could not have been their fault. After all they he/she is such a good person...
Most americans do not know how to set their own boundaries. We eat whatever size steak the resteraunt serves, no matter how obsurdly huge. We pay for our Schooling, no matter how obsurdly expensive. We gun our engines at a green light, and bitch loudly about having to stop again in 40 feet, and what crappy gas mileage we get.
Face it, an automated traffic monitoring system may finally convince people that there are laws to obey beyond the laws of physics! Innocent people may occasionally get a speeding ticket, but it sure beats innocent people being taken out by some car crossing the median after losing control from driving to fast!
Re: Private Sector Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Business is all about providing maximum profit for minimum expenditure.
Can you say "Rent-A-Cop"?
The weak link is still people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The weak link is still people (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunantly, this is a huge problem where I come from. I'm certain everyone knows by now about the abysmal state of law enforment in Cincinnati Ohio. Well, its a whole lot worse than you are probably told it is. Since the riots last year, there is this incredible aire of "permissability" (is that a word?) in the "bad" part of town. A dance club that I frequent is in *that* part of town. Every week I see examples of what happens when the agencies who are supposed to police the police have their hands tied behind their backs. Its a freaking war zone down there. Three weeks ago there was a shooting, at 13th and Vine streets. Address sound familiar? yep, thats where the trouble started last time. Police response time for the shooting? 45 minutes! 45 MINUTES!!! Christ! I could have carried the guy on my shoulders to the hospital in that amount of time.
Now, please, don't get me wrong, the police in inner-city communities have a job I would not want. So I try not to bitch too much. But in this town they are not even trying anymore. No one wants to start the next riot. Machines however are probably not the answer in this decade.
Cameras? sure. Bring em on. The more the merrier. We should all realize by now that we can no longer assume that we are not being watched at any given moment. Might as well bring the survellience right out into the open. I used to be very anti-camera. Why? well, mostly because I tend to drive faster than the law says I should. I don't bitch if I get caught (which I have not in quite a while, so much the better) If I'm breaking the law, and I get caught on camera, well... I broke the law. Hell, I *have* been pulled over because some idiot was trying to run me off the road, and I sped up to get away from him, because slowing down sure wasn't working. I would have *loved* to have that on film. I got out of it anyway, but had I *not* gotten out of it, a video clip of this guy up my ass at almost 100mph, with two other lanes CLEAR of traffic would have been nice in court.
The problem (in this town) is a very fine line between taxes to pay for more police, and the willingness to deal with the uglyness that *will* happen when you start the process. I would be willing to wager that 1/4 of the people on the street, in the *bad* part of town, on any given night at say... 2am, are indeed armed. Many of them are under the influence of drugs, and might indeed try to shoot an arresting officer. I bet they would think twice if they knew there was a camera on them. (maybe not... who knows.)
I can tell you that it did work in another part of town (cameras that is), north of the *bad* part of town. It used to be almost as bad, but it was a different element. Mostly white, young college goof offs out to have a good time. Sometimes that involved demolishing public property. Cameras stopped that FAST.
Shit, I could type for hours on what happens in downtown Cincinnati. It's a mess. The cops are afraid to do their jobs, the people are afraid to come out, and the goverment is investigating the police. (Yeah, that is CERTAINLY an incentive for an officer to stick their neck out).
Drug abuse, the prices of the drugs, the reasons people TAKE the drugs, and the crimes they commit to get them is the first problem. It really is.(at least here)
The solution. well, if I knew that, I would be making more than I am now. But remote camera's, and hire some of these poor people who take the drugs to forget how tragic their lives have become, to watch them, might be a good first step.
Leave the ED-209's and Robocops to Delta City. Give the cops some high tech gear, and the real-time backup. (Ever notice how few people try to shoot back at the cops when there is a police chopper overhead with a spotlight on them?)
I may write more on this in my journal, because I'm getting a bit off topic, and certainly long winded on this. But, you get my point.
CCTV culture (Score:2)
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?
RIAA-209 (Score:5, Funny)
A wonderful short story on this very topic (Score:3, Informative)
also reminded me of a story... (Score:2)
Can't remember the name of the story though.
- adam
Intellectual Property Bots (Score:5, Informative)
Arrange a meeting (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Everyone needs to be better informed (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Everyone needs to be better informed (Score:5, Informative)
IP addresses are more analogous to phone numbers. One computer, one IP is typical, but different configurations are certainly possible. You can have multiple IPs on one computer, for instance, or you can have multiple computers NATd onto one IP. Likewise, one location, one phone number is typical, but can be done differently. You can have multiple phone numbers at one location, as in the example case of households with extra phone lines for fax, modem, teen, whatever, or you can have one phone number that auto-routes the caller to your nearest office. Also central to this analogy is that phone numbers do not necessarily keep the same owner over a period of time, and the same is true for IP addresses. This does not hold true for SSNs.
Re:Everyone needs to be better informed (Score:2)
Re:Everyone needs to be better informed (Score:2)
Midway through the hearing, the presiding U.S. magistrate asked, "What are GIF files?"
The author of the article makes a sneering remark about this:
This combination of cluelessness and irresponsibility is, unfortunately, not unusual.
To quote another part of the article: "Puhleez!". For one, there are expert witnesses to bring detailed technical expertise to a case.
Judges may not know all the details about the latest technical terms and developments. Neither do they know the ins and outs of forensic research, or modern medicine. Yet they are quite able to render just verdicts in murder cases or medical malpractice cases where such areas of science play a major role. A judge may not understand all the details, but most of the times they are well able to gauge the relevance and impact of technological issues in context of the current law. The law is sometimes ill-equiped to deal with modern technology, but that is hardly the judges fault.
To take the author's example... many ordinary folk, including judges, would not have the slightest clue what a GIF file is. So, simply tell them that it is a type of file used to store images on a computer, and you can get on with the case. These people may be ignorant of technology but they aren't stupid or "clueless" as the author puts it. Some techies may think otherwise, but almost anything in cases like this can be explained in layman's terms. I blame tech-savvie lawyers and expert witnesses for not doing so, not the judges and juries for failing to understand.
One near me (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:One near me (Score:5, Interesting)
This is used as a educational approach of getting the speeders to comply in residential areas which allow only a slow speed.
What happens is this:
a) People use it to measure how accurate their speedometer is displaying their speed, and how much speed "buffer" they have before a "live" system will trigger and take a picture.
b) People just plainly ignore it
c) Kids take their cars to the area where the system currently sits and while one takes off from the beginning of the road the other one wait by the sign to produce a nice picture of his buddy's taillights and the sign saying "83".
Re:One near me (Score:2)
Re:One near me (Score:2, Funny)
Oddly, though, they always seem right.
Re:One near me (Score:3, Insightful)
"how useless it is" ?
It's getting people to drive legally without issuing tickets.
Doesn't sound useless to me...
Re:One near me (Score:2)
Re:One near me (Score:2, Interesting)
Computer Mug Shots (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Computer Mug Shots (Score:2)
Probably an MP3 of the copyrighted song "Happy Birthday".
-
Well we have a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re:Well we have a choice (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to mention in the future we might see a prior restriant issue. In courts, "prior restraint" only applies to First Amendment issues (which you'd think would render unconstitutional the RIAA's proposed laws--man, we should see some good lawsuits after this law passes...) but I'm afraid of seeing prior restrain extended to the physical world--like remotely deactivated cars or even bionic limbs.
Re:Well we have a choice (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the machines aren't objective either; they have the biases of their programmers and operators built into them. An example of this from the article was the speeder-catcher-cameras that were rigged to cite drivers who weren't actually going above the speed limit, in order to generate more revenue for the city.
Re:Well we have a choice (Score:2)
If I were the King, both would have paid an equal modest fee (NOT fine) for excessive speed, which is, I believe, quite fair as far as no damage was done, nor evedence of imminent damage because of the reckless manner of driving was demonstrated, by either. I don't care who or why someone goes 125 (mph, I presume) as far as he (to hell with the PC!) does it safely. The speed itself is no indication of recklessness, as the example with the dying wife demonstrated. And some people may be able to drive fast, but carefully, even without a dying person present in the car.
Re:Well we have a choice (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't agree. I think society is already too dominated by stiff rules and regulations. To further remove judgement from the equation of law enforcement doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I would prefer to see justice upheld than the law, and there is a difference between the two sometimes. That is where a good cop will always be better able to deal justice than any tool that man can devise.
An example, I live in Australia and we had an infamous case where a model was brutally raped and murdered by some low lifes, "the Murphy brothers". Apparently when they were caught by the police they were beaten to a pulp, I can vaguely recall an onlooker descibing how horrified she was at the brutality of the police. Good on them I say
Re:Well we have a choice (Score:2, Interesting)
In 1998 I was driving out west to see some friends, it was my first time out in the "Wide Open" and I loved ever second of it. Driving through Bonneville it took every bit of control I had not to try to peg the needle. (145). Anyway, I get into Nevada, and I pretty much lost that self control as soon as I saw the "Speed Limit 75" signs. It was early in the morning, traffic was very light and I was making up for lost time.
Well, whilst crusing into Elko Nevada, I was barrelling down a long straightaway, and saw the outline of a cruiser on the top of an overpass. I looked down, and realized I was at damned near 140. His lights came on, and I thought, oh hell... I'm going to jail in Nevada.
Well, by the time he caught up with me I was already pulled *well* off the side of the highway, sitting on the hood, with my hands in plain sight, and my license and registration sitting next to me. The officer looked *very* unhappy with me, and said "You are going to KILL someone driving like that". My reply. "Who? there is no one else out here but me and you, and you were not even on this road!" He calmed down a bit and said "Ummmm, Yourself for starters?" I asked him if I could get something out of my wallet for him, he agreed, and I showed him my (quite expired) SCCA Racing Permit.
He says "So? whats this? I said "Look, I was speeding, I don't deny that" He says "Son, 136MPH is not speeding, it's murder using a slightly slower bullet" I said, "Well, maybe, but you've driven that fast right? (Yeah.. he had) okay then. That SCCA license means I have taken and passed the same type of schooling you have to take, High speed maneuvering, collision avoidance, road condition anticipation
Yeah, I still got the ticket. BUT, the ticket he wrote me was for 94 in a 75 (the fastest speed ticket you can get, and not have to make a manditory court appearance) He also told me where the other speed traps were in the state, and on 410(I think thats the road) up into Oregon.
Had he been a photocop unit, well... I might be writing this from a jail cell instead of my home.
Don't take the human nature out of traffic enforcement. *please... at least... for my sake!*
What the hell? (Score:2)
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.)
Oh man... (Score:2, Funny)
Really poor FOX News reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
It then talks about how the RIAA uses search technology to find "infringing" files on P2P networks and concludes "... the FBI will probably start using software 'bots to look for violators". No evidence that they are or even might be about to. We're complaining about something that the writer thinkd might happen? While we're at it let's bitch and moan about the invasion of small green men from Mars that I am convinced will happen tomorrow at noon.
There are enough real problems in the world: terrorism, possible war against Iraq, Ashcroft's nuking of the constitution. Do we really need FOX News stiring up trouble because some law professor got caught speeding? And do we really need Slashdot giving free publicity to his poorly written, unsubstantiated diatribe?
Re:Really poor FOX News reporting (Score:2)
All it takes is 1 lawsuit with some hefty punative damages to make a city rethink its traffic light cameras. Of course, the normal cycle of loose lawsuit, raise taxes seems to be the norm.
Re:Really poor FOX News reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
Forgive my bluntness, but that's just dumb. The relative odds are nowhere near equal. Your faith in contact by LGMs would not follow as a logical step from anything in the real world. But the writer did not create a fantasy. It's actually a decent argument, if not conclusive: Bots can be used to trawl through huge mountains of data. The FBI by its own statements intends to trawl through huge mountains of data. Bots can be used improperly, aggressively, and invasively. Evidence? The RIAA scans offered. It is not at all unreasonable to make the connection and say, "Hmmm. Maybe the FBI will also use bots. And maybe, having lots on their plate, they will cut corners a little."
What you propose is eliminating any reasoning about future events. Apparently we can only look backward. Or, more Santayana-esquely, we are doomed to repeating history, since you propose that it is actually wrong to try to learn from it.
Parent is mistaken about links provided... (Score:5, Interesting)
You are incorrect. The link given in the article [weeklystandard.com] does indeed provide evidence of rigging. Example:
Vendors like Lockheed Martin IMS anticipate a certain amount of public relations blowback, which is why, in internal documents, they warn their customers that "focus must be retained on the core message--increasing public safety." "In the event that other photo enforcement programs . . . have problems," the individual community's success must "be a dominant theme." A "problem" here could be defined as the one Lockheed had gotten itself into in San Diego. There, it was discovered that the company had surreptitiously moved three underground magnetic sensors that triggered the cameras, causing innocent motorists to get ticketed for running red lights. So foul is the process, that lawyer Arthur Tait and his defense team have convinced a Superior Court judge to rule that "evidence from the red-light cameras will not be admitted" against motorists.
It has plenty else to say in a 5 part analysis.
Re:Really poor FOX News reporting (Score:2, Informative)
In some areas, the fact that red light cameras are fraudlent, is common knowlege.
Sacramento Bee [sacbee.com]
Robert Pacuinas, a Sacramento attorney who has successfully challenged a number of red-light tickets is quoted as saying"
"They been prosecuting people for three years and now they're saying these cameras need to be checked and fixed," he said. "There's something wrong with that."
Beware lazy people (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
Except that most lights are configured as "fast yellow", where the amount of time spent as yellow is deliberately set low. Also, it's been shown that red-light cameras actually increase the rate of accidents near the intersection. It's often not the driver causing the accident, but the municipality seeking revenue over safety (ie, placing cameras instead of increasing yellow times).
-jerdenn
Re:personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
If you roll over a stop sign with absolutely NO ONE near you, there is basically nothing to regulate. Whether you comply or not, it yields no advantages, disadvantages or risks to anyone.
As in this specific sitution there is nothing to regulate, the law itself becomes irrelevant. Rolling over a stop sign in this case (where no one is around to see) is not breaking the law. It is just plain stupid to comply to it.
This applies to another thing about traffic which I came to dub "the American disease" when visiting the US. The constant non-useage of turn signals. A lot of americans don't use it at all (and i consider this wrong).
But then again, often I do not use it, because NOBODY is around to see it. Does this give a machine the right to issue a ticket for me? Technically it's possible to put up machines that scan the cars for blink signals when approaching on a turn lane. But if this is the only car for hundreds of yards around, should the machine be allowed to do so? I think not. But being the totally unbiased entity it is, it would. The only solution is not to allow machines do too much in terms of law enforcement.
Re:personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, for you and me, it makes a lot more sense to just pay the fine than it does to try to take on the constitutionality of the law. We'll need someone like the ACLU [aclu.org] to take this on.
Re:personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:2)
Re:personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:2)
Most jurisdictions, for this reason, don't assess points against the owner's license for such violations. They simply have to swear an oath that they weren't driving, and they get out of the fine, in many cases.
Personally, I think the laws should be written (interpreted?) as being "a fine against the owner of the vehicle for allowing it to be used to run a red light."
If it was a buddy of yours driving, fine, either get him to fess up to the crime, or get him to repay you after you've paid it. But your car was still used, and you are still, somewhat, liable.
(yes, I know assigning liability like this is a very grey area -- especially once you start talking about guns and stuff. But owning and operating a car is a privelege, not a right, and that privelege can come with specific restrictions, like agreeing to be held liable for a fine if anyone using your car runs a red light. Don't like the restriction, fine, don't register your car in this state. At least, that's the way I see that they could do it.)
Re:personally I don't want ANY machines. (Score:4, Insightful)
Think long and hard (Score:2)
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.
Look to Europe? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Look to Europe? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Look to Europe? (Score:2)
Actually, I lived in Germany for several years, and my experience is that motorcyclists almost never got photo tickets, as the systems in Germany take a frontal photo, and there is no front license plate on motorcycles.
-jerdenn
Re:Look to Europe? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Look to Europe? (Score:2)
Re:Look to Europe? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Presaged? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isnt this what Lawrence Lessig was talking about in his big code is law [stanford.edu] 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...
This is why /. exists and needs to exist (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Red Light Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
Screw cameras. [weeklystandard.com]
Advanced justice machines (Score:4, Funny)
Officer: Bite my shiny metal ass
The law is code; it should be enforced by machines (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:The law is code; it should be enforced by machi (Score:5, Insightful)
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 law is code; it should be enforced by machi (Score:2)
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.
Re:The law is code; it should be enforced by machi (Score:2)
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.
Back when I lived in a free country... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Note: This is an editorial, not a news story (Score:3, Informative)
Note to slashdot editors: It would be super if you could post these stories with some mention that it is an editorial.
A story in law automation: the downtown project (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:A story in law automation: the downtown project (Score:2)
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.
Re:A story in law automation: the downtown project (Score:2)
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).
Re:A story in law automation: the downtown project (Score:2)
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.
Same old FOX News quality (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot's future lameness bot (Score:2, Funny)
Slow Down Cowboy!
You have violated HighLordTaco's speed typing statute. Step away from the keyboard for 20 seconds. Now.
Assault by a machine. (Score:2, Informative)
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).
Right to challenge your accuser (Score:5, Informative)
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 [angelfire.com] 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
Re:Right to challenge your accuser (Score:2)
Some foolish part of me can't wait for one of these systems to give me a ticket. "Your honor, the most devastating witness against me ...."
Re:Right to challenge your accuser (Score:2)
What is the first defense that people recommend when a cop gived you a ticket? Ask when the last time is was calibrated! When you get pulled over with VASCAR? Have them re-measure the lines, and certify when the timepiece was caliberated!
Who is to say you could not subpena the maintenance records of the device, the source code, and/or the engineers who designed it? We live in a very litigious world. Use it to the fullest.
Warez sites, bad pics (Score:2)
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
unsporting I say ... (Score:2)
Not right (Score:2)
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".
Spoofing Speed Traps (Score:2)
speeding/red light cameras don't bother me (Score:2)
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).
Re:speeding/red light cameras don't bother me (Score:2)
> "little" faster just invites selective
> enforcement.
Question is, what's to stop people going `just a bit faster' if the limit is higher?
> People driving into the intersection when they
> shouldn't are a major nuisance.
This is a social education problem, not a technological one.
Here in the UK we have some junctions with yellow cross-hatching which means "don't enter the junction until your way out is clear or you're turning right", but that doesn't stop people in towns totally ignoring them. Maybe actually getting a real live policeman on the job would be a good idea - someone to walk up to a car sat in the middle of the junction and slap a ticket on them then and there.
And I know what you mean - even this morning on the way into work I had to blast some eejit who pulled out onto a mini-roundabout in front of me. ("give way to folks approaching from the right"? Naaaaaah, we don't need to do that...)
It happens in Belgium (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Military Tribunal In Brazil? This may be worse. (Score:2, Funny)
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
But the main question is why (Score:2)
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.
Fun with traffic cameras... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
that's not running a red light (Score:2, Informative)
Re:... But it is still illegal in most areas (Score:2)
Re:the problem is (Score:3, Informative)
Poor example: you shouldn't move into the middle of the intersection until you can leave it safely too. The middle of an intersection is a really dangerous place to stop, which is why you shouldn't stop there. If you do, then you are (in most states) in violation of the traffic regulations and you should get a ticket, whether its from a camera or a cop.
Re:the problem is (Score:3, Interesting)
It is NOT relevent whether it is safe to proceed THROUGH the intersection.
I know of more than 1 person who failed their drivers test for not following this particular requirement.
On the other hand, it is a rare occasion when you cannot leave the intersection on the yellow/amber, asuming your stuck making a left for that long.
Re:the problem is (Score:2)
The last time I was in traffic survival school (I can't help it that all the speed limits are 20 MPH below what they shold be ;), the teacher mentioned this situation specifically. In Arizona, in controlled intersections without a left turn arrow, when there is too much oncoming traffic to turn, the correct thing to do is to pull into the intersection and wait for the light to turn yellow. When oncoming traffic stops you can make your turn. To wait behind the line means you'll never get to turn.
Re:the problem is (Score:2)
However, you should only complete the turn when it's clear, i.e. you don't want to be blocking the oncoming traffic lanes.
I suppose it comes down to the exact wording of the traffic regs in each state/province, and where in the intersection you stop your car.
Re:the problem is (Score:2)
This does indeed violate the traffic laws in many places -- for example, in California. The problem is that you often cannot hope to make a left turn at all if you follow this rule, as when there's no left-turn signal (that is, no protected left). So you can wait five hours for your chance to make a legal left turn, with other cars stacking up behind you the whole time, or you can do the "wrong" thing because it's the only practical thing to do. (Or you can make three right turns instead -- uh, yeah.) Guess what everyone does.
This is one of the problems with delegating law enforcement to a machine: a cop knows better than to ticket people for this, a camera doesn't.
Re:the problem is (Score:2)
Re:the problem is (Score:2)
AFAIK, the camera takes two or more pictures a second or two apart, to establish that you are moving and not just sitting in the middle of the intersection. In your example, you do leave the intersection through the red light, but there won't be a picture of your car entering the intersection on red, so no action will be taken.