Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Law Enforcement by Machines

Comments Filter:
  • But... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Order ( 469817 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:34PM (#4384714)
    But the Robocop was good!
  • by Nathdot ( 465087 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:38PM (#4384729)
    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. :)
    • by ejaw5 ( 570071 )
      (Family dispute at Simpson's residence):
      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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Moderate that post +5 Funny if you like, but to some extent, the police have already been moved into the private sector.

      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)

        by Kaiwen ( 123401 ) on Friday October 04, 2002 @02:57AM (#4385763) Journal
        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:The solution (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@NosPAM.etoyoc.com> on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:22AM (#4386291) Homepage Journal
      Actually I see law enforcement as a "Shaker Stool", with 3 legs, not 2. There is the legal system, with procedure and objectivity. There is the enforcement officer, with on the spot judgement and the ability to handle extraordinary cases. The third leg is the citizens themselves!

      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!

    • by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@NosPAM.etoyoc.com> on Friday October 04, 2002 @07:25AM (#4386299) Homepage Journal
      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"?

  • by PFactor ( 135319 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:40PM (#4384734) Journal
    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.
    • Amen Brother!

      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.

    • 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!

      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)

    by NecrosisLabs ( 125672 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:40PM (#4384736)
    "Please put down your keyboard, you have 20 seconds to comply."
  • by denubis ( 105145 ) <brian.technicraft@com> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:43PM (#4384750)
    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.
    • ...I read when I was a kid, although I doubt it was the same one since I don't this story would get a Nebula. It's about a robotic cop who is missing the "feel" that a real policeman has. So he lets someone go who is acting suspicious because they have not broken any laws (then later they commit a serious crime), and busts someone for a minor offence like jaywalking (when they were actually doing it for a good reason).

      Can't remember the name of the story though.

      - adam

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:44PM (#4384751)
    Intellectual property law is going to be a big chunk of automated law enforcement. Check out this : Intellectual Property Bots [bottechnology.com] Wonder if IBM found this eBay auction for IBMLinux.com [ebay.com] with it yet.
  • by athakur999 ( 44340 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:45PM (#4384761) Journal
    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.
  • by liquidice5 ( 570814 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:46PM (#4384764) Homepage
    Not only does the robots need to get better at law enforcement,
    so do the Humans involved

    At the bail hearing for Johnston, Tinney and three other defendants in Houston, the 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." 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.

    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 ... is not authorized by Warner Bros. ... or the law."

    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
    • by AntiNorm ( 155641 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:02PM (#4384812)
      At the bail hearing for Johnston, Tinney and three other defendants in Houston, the 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." 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.

      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.
    • 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
      You can't require the judges and jury to be experts on the field in question on every case that they come across, that's why you have experts' testimony (weather they really are experts is another matter).
    • Better informed? I agree about law enforcement people but I would not include judges and juries.

      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)

    by Xtraneous ( 594376 ) <Xtraneous AT comcast DOT net> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:47PM (#4384765)
    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.
    • Re:One near me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by psych031337 ( 449156 ) <psych0@wtnetCOFFEE.de minus caffeine> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:33PM (#4384930)
      We have something similar around here (.de). It consists of the standard laser speed pistol cops use and a special sign that has a display built in, showing you the measured speed in real time while you are approaching.

      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".
    • There's one of these on I40 on my ride home from work, but it displays the speed (which flashes if you go over 45). The funniest thing is the placement. It's right before a bunch of extensive roadwork, and most of the time traffic is backed up well past it. So it usually reads 12 or 14...
    • by pla ( 258480 )
      In Maine, we have an amusing (low budget?) variant of this idea. On the highways, we have flashing signs that say "You are speeding, slow down!!!" (and other slight variations on that theme). They don't actually have any sensory ability, they just *always* say that.

      Oddly, though, they always seem right. ;-)
  • Computer Mug Shots (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stinson ( 564450 ) <cancerouspete@TWAINcox.net minus author> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:47PM (#4384770) Homepage Journal
    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
  • by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:49PM (#4384773) Homepage Journal
    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."
    • For me, it's a matter of dignity, not utilitarianism. Machines are beneath humans. Not necessarily in terms of ability, but in terms of respect. Being arrested by a machine is like being arrested by a child--except much worse, because children are humans, and, as blindly asserted above, machines are beneath humans.

      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.

    • Go with humans, who are known fallable and subjective, or machines, who are known fallable and too objective.


      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.

    • 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.

      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.

    • I think most of us would agree we would prefer an emotionally-inert policing force.

      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 ;-)
  • Oh man... (Score:2, Funny)

    by $0 31337 ( 225572 )
    .. This is gonna be such a good post.. I'm gonna try to relate the article to robocop because nobody else would ever think of that! Hehehehe.. I'll mention cool phrases like "You have 20 seconds to comply!!" and then I'll get modded up as Funny: 5.. this is gonna be great.... waiiittttt... about 90 other fucking posts above me have already said it. Guess I won't post it after all.
  • by gwernol ( 167574 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:51PM (#4384780)
    This is a really bad article. For instance the second paragraph says (refering to red light camera): "Unfortunately, they turn out to be inaccurate, and often rigged" except the linked article doesn't present any evidence of rigging, indeed its main complaint seems to be that DMV offices have "ugly formica surfaces" not pleasant, but not exactly related to rigging of red light cameras.

    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?
    • Hey, maybe its common knowledge that traffic lights are rigged by third party companies! (-;

      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.
    • by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:27PM (#4384906) Homepage Journal
      Blockquoth the poster:

      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.

      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.

    • by CeruleanSilver ( 247990 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:38PM (#4384946) Homepage
      the second paragraph says (refering to red light camera): "Unfortunately, they turn out to be inaccurate, and often rigged" except the linked article doesn't present any evidence of rigging

      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.
    • FUD Master "gwernol" says "except the linked article doesn't present any evidence of rigging"

      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)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:51PM (#4384781)

    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.

  • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:55PM (#4384793)
    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
    • by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:38PM (#4384948) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • 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.

        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

    • by falloutboy ( 150069 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:01PM (#4385001)
      "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.
      • A stop sign is a safety device which regulates traffic flow in the interest of all people who take part in the traffic system (pedestrians, bikers, cyclists, ...). It's the law.

        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.

    • IANAL of course, but there is a legal premise that says that someone accused of criminal activity gets the opportunity to confront their accuser...it seems to me that if a machine is taking pictures of you, you don't get the opportunity to confront it (ie, cross-examine it).

      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.

      • IAAI(I am an idiot), but I'm pretty sure I read that in some places if you contest it, they'll drop the charges. I'm assuming it's because you can't really cross-examine a machine.
    • by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @11:28PM (#4385294) Homepage
      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.
    • 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.
  • Look to Europe? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:55PM (#4384796)
    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.
    • I do not know a SINGLE biker here in Germany who has ever gotten a red light ticket.

      Legalese in .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.

      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 .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.
    • The motorcyclists in Europe have been hit hard by the ticketing machines, or so I've heard.

      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)

      by yogi ( 3827 )
      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.
  • Presaged? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Srin Tuar ( 147269 ) <zeroday26@yahoo.com> on Thursday October 03, 2002 @08:56PM (#4384798)


    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 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.
  • Red Light Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:06PM (#4384831)
    "Just to recap, consider: A private company is given police power to ticket citizens, has a monetary interest in generating as many tickets as possible, and, despite its low success rate, is often allowed to do so with minimal or no police supervision."

    Screw cameras. [weeklystandard.com]

  • by blackbeaktux ( 525688 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:10PM (#4384854)
    Me: Officer, I don't think you're supposed to be drinking while on duty...
    Officer: Bite my shiny metal ass
  • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:11PM (#4384857) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.
    • by mamba-mamba ( 445365 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @10:04PM (#4385008)
      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

      • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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?

  • by falloutboy ( 150069 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:13PM (#4384867)
    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.
  • 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.
    • One of the things I like best about this is that unlike policemen, cameras are colorblind.

      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.

      • 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).
        • 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.

          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.

          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).

          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.

  • by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @09:35PM (#4384938) Homepage
    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?

  • Slow Down Cowboy!

    You have violated HighLordTaco's speed typing statute. Step away from the keyboard for 20 seconds. Now.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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).

  • by Hungus ( 585181 ) on Thursday October 03, 2002 @11:48PM (#4385349) Journal
    Here in the US we have a constitutional right to a fair trial which includes due process ( more below) one of the biggest aspects of this is teh ability to challenge your accuser in a court of law. If a machine enforves teh law who is your accuser? This is a serious issue here folks, It means that all those stop light cameras and such are technically only evidence and if no accuser is present then they should not be able to charfe you with a crime of any kind.


    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 ......

    • Here in the US we have a constitutional right to a fair trial which includes due process ( more below) one of the biggest aspects of this is teh ability to challenge your accuser in a court of law. If a machine enforves teh law who is your accuser?
      Yeah, haven't these people seen the Star Trek episode "Court Martial"?

      Kirk's Lawyer: Rights, sir, human rights -- the Bible, the Code of Hammurabi and of Justinian, Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, fundamental declarations of the Martian colonies, the statutes of Alpha 3 -- gentlemen, these documents all speak of rights. Rights of the accused to a trial by his peers, to be represented by counsel, the rights of cross-examination, but most importantly, the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him -- a right to which my client has been denied.

      Your Honor, that is ridiculous. We produced the witnesses in court. My learned opponent had the opportunity to see them, cross-examine them -- all but one! The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It's a machine, an information system. The computer log of the Enterprise.

      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 ...."

    • Who says that you can't challenge the computer?

      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.

  • 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
  • Enforcement by machines takes all the sport out of breaking the law and avoiding arrest and prosecution. It's likedeer hunting with a tactical nuke.


  • 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".

  • 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...
  • If the posted speed limits are too low (and I think they are in many places), we should raise them. The current situation, where "everbody" goes a "little" faster just invites selective enforcement.

    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).

    • > The current situation, where "everbody" goes a
      > "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...)
  • 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.
  • "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. "

    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 ....." Well, that's 3 on 1 ..No thanks, I'll take a jury.

  • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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.

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Working...