Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Government

State Legislators Want Surveillance Cameras To Catch Uninsured Drivers (arstechnica.com) 277

Posted by EditorDavid from the I'll-be-seeing-you dept.
An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica: A Rhode Island legislative committee has approved a bill that would greatly expand the surveillance state through the deployment of license plate readers. For the first time in the US, these devices would be attached along Rhode Island highways and roads for the stated purpose of catching uninsured motorists from any state... The legislation spells out that the contractor for the project would get 50 percent of the fines paid by uninsured motorists ensnared under the program. The state and the contractor would each earn an estimated $15 million annually. Fines are as high as $120.

Many police departments nationwide are using surveillance cameras tacked onto traffic poles and police vehicles to catch traffic violators and criminal suspects. The proceeds from traffic fines usually are divvied up with contractors. But according to the Rhode Island lawmaker sponsoring this legislation, it's time to put surveillance cameras to a new purpose -- fining uninsured motorists.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Legislators Want Surveillance Cameras To Catch Uninsured Drivers More

State Legislators Want Surveillance Cameras To Catch Uninsured Drivers

Comments Filter:

  • Never will work... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    since it puts too big of a burden on illegals. We tried something like this here in CA, but it was racist in effect so the people running it should have been put in prison.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by epyT-R ( 613989 )

      The ideological lensing in your comment is off the scale. Plate scanners do not filter by race. Unequal outcome is not proof of unethical discrimination.

  • Okay, unless I'm missing something here.... what's the point? I don't have to show proof of insurance in my home state to the DMV. The only time I have to show proof is when requested by law enforcement. So, my question is, what are they going to do about states like this? Is everyone going to be marked uninsured and harassed?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      If it's anything like red light cameras, the answer to all questions is "pay the fine, no right to trial, no appeals process of any kind".

      I find that the most appalling part of systems like this. They bypass all the usual constitutional protections, and effectively impose a tax at the whim of the state (since if it's a civil or criminal matter, you have constitutional rights to a trial). So it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't a process of any kind to challenge the system if it's mistaken about whether

      • Re:no... no.. no! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:28PM (#54683731)

        Here in the UK, traffic cameras are a common means of detecting road traffic offences, be it speeding or uninsured or untaxed vehicles - the registered keeper gets a notice of intent to prosecute sent to them and they have three options:

        1. admit the offence, accept the points and fine (or any offered alternative)
        2. respond with the drivers details if someone else was driving, and the offence was either speeding or uninsured vehicle
        3. contest the offence, which means going to court

        Its a decent system and it works - the DVLA knows if a vehicle is taxed, the Motor Insurance Database knows if a vehicle is insured (there are exceptions to this - you can get policies which cover you as a driver on any vehicle, which means the vehicle would be covered and you just respond to the notice of prosecution with proof). Of course drivers don't like the system, but it does work :)

        I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!

        • Re:no... no.. no! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:40PM (#54683775)

          A significant part of the horrified reaction comes from the part about 'the contractor gets 50%" of revenue generated. In the US there are -at least formally- limits to what an agency of the state can get away with, (appearances must be maintained) such limits are not perceived to apply to private contractors.

          apropos: $CAPTCHA=='slowdown'

          • But if a private contractor is doing it that's free enterprise isn't it?

          • There is some moral ground to object on as well but it's pretty slim in my mind and I wouldn't let it stand in the way of establishing such a system where I live, albeit without a contractor taking a cut.

            My moral concern is that the drivers which would, in my completely fail able guess, bear the brunt of these fines would be the poor. I know for myself as a member of the middle class that my insurance rates are just one of the necessary expenses of owning a car and that expense isn't worth trying to dodge.

        • Here in the UK, traffic cameras are a common means of detecting road traffic offences, be it speeding or uninsured or untaxed vehicles - the registered keeper gets a notice of intent to prosecute sent to them and they have three options:

          There was a problem with a guy who skipped paying bridge tolls in California, he removed his plate. And skipped paying hundreds of times before the police finally recognized his rather rare sports car.

          And in the US, states don't share information with other states freely. So if all you have is a camera shot of an out-of-state license plate, it's a bit of work to track down the owner. It's been a real problem for charging tourists for crossing the Golden Gate Bridge. There are still a few states left that ca

        • I can't tell you for other states, but in California, we like speeding. That's why we don't like speed cameras. (Also, the fact that red-light cameras increase accidents is kind of a negative. Even worse, they mainly catch people who are turning right on right, which is completely legal)

          • (Also, the fact that red-light cameras increase accidents is kind of a negative.

            That's outweighed by their decreasing fatal accidents.

            Even worse, they mainly catch people who are turning right on right, which is completely legal)

            That's a bigger problem, if true.

          • I was caught by one of those red light cameras: turning right at a red light without coming to a full stop in a rich suburb of Portland, Oregon. The fact that it happened just after midnight and no cars or pedestrians were visible for miles in all directions didn't make any difference to the judge. The fact is that I sailed though the turn at 11MPH without stopping.

            Back in the 80's when they first made driving without insurance illegal, the argument was put forth that a law can't be enacted that favors a pr

        • "I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!"

          Because we know the excuse they're using is just bullshit. Once in place, the sky's the limit on what they'll really be used for.

          When profit + punishment work together, things rarely work out well.

          Is why they were tweaking yellow to red light transitions to cycle faster. It caught more folks and brought in more money.

        • Re:no... no.. no! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @06:26PM (#54683989)
          One of the biggest problems we in the U.S. have with systems like this is that it pushes the burden of proof onto the accused. That is unacceptable here.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AHuxley ( 892839 )
            The reason for such ideas in the USA is it creates large new data sets that are not kept or funded by the state, city or federally.
            As the state, city or federal gov is not "keeping" or "collecting" data on people that are not criminals they can respond to any FOIA, media, political questions with the standard truthful no databases, only ever have existing criminals on their own state/federal file.
            The private database are then accessed the US gov. The US gov did not create, sort or keep a database but ha

          • Not really. They age evidence that you were driving (photo), and that you haven't registered any insurance. That's their proof, but you have the chance to defend yourself.

        • Re:no... no.. no! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @07:12PM (#54684177)

          I do find it amusing how riled up Americans get whenever someone considers a similar system in the US - I just don't get what it is about punishing illegal drivers that pisses people off!

          It's not the punishing illegal acts but the intrusion of government. Americans tend to dislike government monitoring them, something that goes back to a time when some guy named George kept trying to keep tabs on them. That instilled a mistrust of government, amongst other things, that still runs deep in the American mindset.

        • My concern is this gives the government the ability to track your movements, something they should only be able to do with a warrant. Sure, it starts with this camera in a few places, next thing you know, they'll have all sorts of cameras tracking all sorts of offences. And if the red light cameras are any indicator of future behavior, they'll start gaming the system to increase revenue. "We need more income from these red light cameras, let's make the light cycle shorter!"

          Then there's the income the con

        • In Switzerland, you are required to share details of your insurance before you can collect your plates. If you cancel your insurance, the insurer informs the government agency (and, in fact, won't cancel the insurance until you prove that you have either gotten new insurance or handed in your plates).

          That communication simply prevents the situation where you have uninsured drivers on the road. It's a good system.

        • We have a similar method in Canada sans the traffic cameras. Here if you have no insurance (which shows by your license tags being out of date) your car is ticketed if it's left on the street. If it is still uninsured when noticed a second time it's impounded. If you're driving it and get pulled over, it's impounded on the spot.

          We have VERY few problems with "uninsured motorist" collisions as a result.

    • What state do you not have to prove insurance when registering your vehicle?

    • I don't have to show proof of insurance in my home state to the DMV.

      In California, your insurance company informs that state electronically when you buy insurance. Smog test centers also file test results electronically. This works well because there is no paperwork to get lost, and the state knows exactly who is uninsured or rolling coal [wikipedia.org].

    • "Okay, unless I'm missing something here.... what's the point? I don't have to show proof of insurance in my home state to the DMV. The only time I have to show proof is when requested by law enforcement."

      Then it's good that this is run by law enforcement and not by the DMV.

      • Yeah, but where are they going to get the data that if your car doesn't have insurance? The DMV..... and if you don't provide it to the DMV.... how is law enforcement going to know?

    • Wow... here in Colorado you must show proof of insurance to renew your vehicleâ(TM)s license plates every year.

  • Of course this is all for your safety (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:03PM (#54683649)

    and has nothing to do with making a bunch of money

    • Re:Of course this is all for your safety (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:41PM (#54683781) Homepage Journal

      Uninsured motorists cost everyone money.

      I'm not sure it costs so much that the cost of a whole network of spy cameras is justified though. Probably lots of kickbacks and political corruption driving that.

      • with a private company. This is just shaking down the poor so they don't have to raise taxes, just like red light cameras (which you won't find in well to do neighborhoods or on freeways those same well to do use).

        Give us single payer health care and you take away 90% of the justification of mandatory car insurance. Trotting out kids who got hit by a car and couldn't pay medical bills is how they got it through. But again, the point isn't fairness, it's shaking down the poor.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Calydor ( 739835 )

          Car insurance is mandatory in European countries as well, mostly because if you total someone else's car it's unlikely that you can afford to buy them a new car WITHOUT insurance.

        • "They're splitting the fees 50/50 with a private company. " ...who pays for everything, the cameras, installation, location, personnel, power, security, maintenance ....

          • "They're splitting the fees 50/50 with a private company. " ...who pays for everything, the cameras, installation, location, personnel, power, security, maintenance ....

            Which is precisely the problem, as it gives the contractor an incentive to levy as many fines as they can get away with. To see how this sort of perverse incentive can get out of hand, look at the Wells Fargo scandal.

            If the objective truly was to improve public safety (as opposed to make money for the local government and contractor), the local government would pay the contractor a flat fee for the initial installation and setup, a flat fee (per month or some other period of time) for the service of actual

          • "They're splitting the fees 50/50 with a private company. " ...who pays for everything, the cameras, installation, location, personnel, power, security, maintenance ....

            So the citizens of Rhode Island are giving up revenue, effectively raising their own taxes, in order to support a private business. The contracts are almost always set up as a monopoly as well, and the business couldn't exist without the government so I'd classify it as a startup business.

            It's one thing for the government to spend tax money on short term private contracts. But it's another for the government to establish a private monopoly that has little oversight and injects "evidence" into the legal syst

        • Give us single payer health care and you take away 90% of the justification of mandatory car insurance.

          I didnt know single payer health-care pays for telephone poles. Good to know.

        • So getting people to follow the law by systematically scanning every car indiscriminately is "shaking down the poor"? That comment was a special kind of stupid.

      • Uninsured motorists cost others money only if they cause damage with their vehicle and then avoid paying for the damage they've done, either due to poverty or otherwise avoiding responsibility.

        Uninsured motorists who do no damage with their vehicle, or pay for damage if they do cause it, are heroes. They're not supporting the insurance industry, which is a parasite on humanity. They're acting in a brave manner, living rather than hiding behind the perforated shield of insurance. They are what humans should

  • This is just a kickback (Score:3)

    by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:20PM (#54683713) Journal
    Here in Florida, many of the patrol cars have the license plate reading cameras and they are active all the time soaking up plates that the car passes and running them. That is a much wider surveillance effort than a few fixed cameras. The reason for the few fixed cameras approach is to get a kickback instead of keeping the funds fully in the state's hands. I'm sure the company's lobbyist approached somebody, not vice versa.

  • Corporate Law Enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:21PM (#54683715) Homepage

    The financial incentive for contractors has to end. If the state is fining uninsured drivers, I have far less of a problem with it. But when law enforcement becomes a corporate profit center, it gives corporations power they shouldn't have. The same goes for for-profit prisons. If any state wants to put someone in jail, the taxpayers should have to shoulder that entire burden.

  • We demolish Rhode Island.

  • California uninsured drivers (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:39PM (#54683769) Homepage Journal

    If you don't provide the DMV proof of insurance you cannot renew your vehicle's registration. Then you must either file a PNO (planned non-operation) or transfer your vehicle. If you do not pay the fines, your license is suspended. If you drive with expired registration, there are some fines and you are usually caught pretty quickly. If you drive without insurance and are caught, there are some fines. If you drive without a license, you can be arrested.

    None of this required camears. It's all about having the proper chain of paperwork in place, and the enforcement is handled by a combination of DMV notices and police officers. It becomes pretty obvious that you have troubles with the DMV when your drivers license and plates are expired.

  • How will this work? (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @05:42PM (#54683783)

    Drivers are insured, not motor vehicles. How will they know from a photo of a plate whether that particular driver has current insurance?

    • That's exactly what I was wondering as well...

    • States require insurance on cars rather than drivers because of the hit-and-run problem. "Oh no officer, I didn't sideswipe 7 cars while speeding. Somebody stole my car." Of course, by using this technique states evade the principle of personal responsibility and all that it entails, but that's what is expected from government.

    • It probably varies state to state but in AZ, your car is listed on your insurance. While the liability insurance is for you operating a vehicle, and applies even if you drive another car, your car is still listed on your insurance paperwork. It also helps determine the rate. If you have a high performance car, you are going to pay higher liability insurance than someone with an econobox.

      So if you found a car driving around, and couldn't find a record for its insurance, good chance the owner is uninsured. It

    • In California my insurance is on the vehicle.

    • It seems that both are covered. For a short time after college I lived with someone that had a past DUI. When the insurance company found this out (I think that the other guy had insurance from the same company) I got a phone call. I was told that I am not to allow my housemate to drive my car. Not a big deal since I had my car and he had his. I do recall some situation where I ended up driving his car to do something but that was very unusual. I'm a big guy, in the 1% of height, and he drove a new Ho

  • This is dystopia dressed up as a means to catch insurance-dodging crooks.

    In order for the proposal to work, it will of course be necessary for the camera network to be backed by computer systems that have the ability to recognise a license plate on a passing vehicle. The location of the camera and the time of the capture event will be recorded, along with the details of the plate.

    But already we hit our first problem. I'm guessing, but let's say that 99.9% of road users have insurance. Only 0.1% do not
  • and what state legislators brother owns this contract company?
  • Using cameras like this, and to find stolen cars is A Good Thing (TM) IMHO. But only if the data isn't retained. Read a plate, go/no go, if no-go the data is thrown away.

    Any plan where a no-go means they still keep the data for however long though, drill a hole in their skull and fuck them through it.

  • Anyone sharing the revenue now is foolish (Score:3)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @06:45PM (#54684077)

    The cameras, the connections, and the back-end storage and processing are relatively inexpensive now.

    The cops should be running their own camera systems from a COTS solution, put a tech on the police payroll, and then keep 100% of the revenue rather than paying an ongoing percentage to an outside company to do something that it now essentially technically trivial.

    And it's not a surveillance state if you can keep the cops to merely scanning wanted plates instead of tracking everyone. If you're breaking the law, they should be looking for you. (The problem is stopping them from looking for you when you're NOT breaking the law... data is always used against you)

  • ... by connecting the insurance database to the registration database, and the vehicle VIN database and the stolen vehicle database and the Amber Alert database ...

    "The information's out there, all you have to do is let it in." ~ Suitcase (Jesse Stone)

  • But the local govt needs to invest in the public transportation system too. If the uninsured drivers can't get to work, not only is it bad for them it is bad for the businesses they work for.

  • What About The Database (Score:3)

    by Toad-san ( 64810 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @07:41PM (#54684281)

    That's what worries me most about this: the personal information in the database that would of course immediately be stolen. If literally ANY traffic cam can access it, how long will it take the identity thieves?

  • What might be worse (Score:3)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Saturday June 24, 2017 @08:00PM (#54684327)
    If the license plate readers retain the info they collect even after they've made their assessment of insurance, then the system becomes one big movement tracker. Anyone in government will have a handy record of where you went and when. We've already got something like that on a limited scale in my city, but a system like this would kick that into overdrive.

  • Only $120? Up here in Ontario, Canada it's minimum $5000 and max $25000 on first conviction, and $10,000-$50,000 on second conviction. Oh, and they can suspend your license for a year.

    Plus a 25% victim surtax on those fines too.

  • If it's the cops, there might be some safeguards against improper use of the data. There might even be rules about how long until it has to be purged. ... if the contractor is allowed to record every time they see a license plate, they could sell it to anyone who was interested in it. Repo men, PIs, stalkers, etc. Going through a divorce? Good news, your spouse's lawyer can get a map of every place you've been in the state for the last 5 years (or whatever their retention is).

  • I see a big problem here: just like with red light cameras, license plates don't tell you who is driving. That plate can tell you if the owner of the vehicle is insured, but liability insurance attaches to drivers, not to vehicles. That means you can lend someone your uninsured car, if they have a liability policy of their own. You won't have any property coverage if they bring it back broken or crashed though.

    In the case of a red light camera, they expect the owner to know who was driving, and someone ran

  • Set them up for people driving without a front license plate.

      - it's an equipment violation, so it attatches to the registered owner; doesn't matter who is driving
      - trivially easy to prove with two photographs; one of front, one of rear
      - huge number of people to target
      - doesn't pick on any minority, ethnic group, or economic class: everyone is issued two plates

  • what happens if youre from Virginia or New Hampshire where insurance isnt mandatory????

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close