Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 142 posts

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#51

Post by xnx »

wuliwong wrote: post #42
kyralis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone else on the road, and, in the case of seatbelts, for the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries due to failing to take such a basic precaution.

> the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining peo…

> even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health

Distracted driving is a risk to other people, obesity is not.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#52

Post by hashstring »

barbazoo wrote: post #29

I am looking to set up something like this in my neighborhood. I have a pretty good angle frpmy house. We live on a narrow street with parks on either side, a crosswalk, daycares, really a place where you want to pay attention and drive slowly. Yet every day I see people on their phones. I just don't get it. All it takes is one kid making a mistake and running on the road at the wrong moment. Happened couple of weeks…

There is an important issue to be fixed here, yes.

It’s heartbreaking when this happens and I fully agree that there should be more checks in place to prevent this.

However, I am very glad that I live in a country where you are not allowed to record and process this because it’s a violation of my privacy.

I do not think that this is the solution.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#53

Post by ur-whale »

elil17 wrote: post #32

I do understand the privacy arguments, but there are thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day (many of whom aren't even in cars, they're walking or biking). Enforcing traffic laws is one of the only tools for fixing this that can be implemented quickly (as opposed to better urban design and public transit, which are better solutions in many other ways). I feel like their should be room to advocate fo…

[flagged]

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#54

Post by Infinitesimus »

elil17 wrote: post #34
contravariant wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically a slippery slope argument. Which is not completely unfair, police have a terrible track record when it comes to using technological means responsibly.

Police are using a bunch of technologies irresponsibly. Why not advocate for better oversight of police overall instead of trying to block them from using specific technologies?

An alternative perspective:

If a group has repeatedly shown that they will use their tools and power to oppress others, why give them tools that increase their odds of doing so?

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#55

Post by rootusrootus »

contravariant wrote: post #13
tmaly wrote: post #2

I am not looking forward to a future filled with this type of surveillance.

I'm not too worried about this kind of surveillance. What we're seeing here is surveillance of a public area, used for a clear goal, which is proportional (because texting while driving is insane) and is reviewed by humans, and has clear avenues for escalation when it makes a mistake. The scary parts are the parts that such a system is capable of, but which are not made public. For one the article doesn't mention whe…

> texting while driving is insane

I'm inclined to agree, but I would also love to see more detailed analysis. It is easy for everyone to jump on this particular bandwagon (I have found very few people willing to say that texting while driving is no big deal), but at the same time I see a lot of texting while driving happening every day. And while we do know it contributes to accidents, driving remains a relatively safe activity statistically given how dangerous it seems.

It's a little bit similar to the 'think of the children' argument, and it makes me uncomfortable when we use such justifications for massively increasing surveillance in a way that seems disproportionate to the problem we are trying to solve.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#56

Post by krisoft »

xedrac wrote: post #10

One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes. The good news is that every time one of these automated systems is implemented, too many politicians get caught and the laws get changed.

> One definition of a dystopian society is a society where you cannot make mistakes.

Except being awarded penalty points, or fined for doing something dangerous is not exactly "cannot make mistakes" is it? You do a stupid and dangerous thing, you are fined and hopefully you won't do it anymore. If you do it often enough your privilege of piloting a giant metal box around people is revoked.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#57

Post by lisper »

kyralis wrote: post #17
Verdex wrote: post #8

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S.…

I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone else on the road, and, in the case of seatbelts, for the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries due to failing to take such a basic precaution.

> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims".

You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but someone else might.

This is the problem: who gets to decide? Today the people deciding the parameters for focusing the AI's attention might be benevolent and acting in good faith by your standard and mine, but who is to say that this will still be true tomorrow? Not everyone shares our quality metric.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#58

Post by rglover »

kevinventullo wrote: post #33
Verdex wrote: post #8

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S.…

This is one of those quotes that sounds deep but is obviously untrue if you think about it for a bit. I suspect he would prefer “moral busybodies” to, I dunno, 1930’s Germany.

Substitute "robber baron" with "mid-century gangster" and you'd find it's quite accurate. Mind your own business, keep the peace, and you'll find little trouble. Moral busybodies, by definition, have to constantly meddle in your affairs; it's their sole source of life.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#59

Post by elil17 »

jfindley wrote: post #43
elil17 wrote: post #32

I do understand the privacy arguments, but there are thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day (many of whom aren't even in cars, they're walking or biking). Enforcing traffic laws is one of the only tools for fixing this that can be implemented quickly (as opposed to better urban design and public transit, which are better solutions in many other ways). I feel like their should be room to advocate fo…

In the UK, where this is happening, that's simply not true. There were 1695 road fatalities in 2022 total. That's very different from "thousands a day". I do not believe it is desirable (or practically possible) to eliminate all risk of death or injury from life, and increasingly orwellian surveillance measures to clamp down on every misdeed and ill advised risk does not, I think, make for a happier or freer society.

The UK makes up less than 1% of the worlds population, so it does make sense that there are many more driving deaths globally than in the UK.

I can agree that complete safety is not practical or desirable.

But in our current society, simply walking down the street can get you killed by a driver. That is not freedom in my mind.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#60

Post by aimor »

I'm still surprised automated enforcement isn't more widespread. Where I live red light cameras are at almost every major intersection, speed cameras are on school roads and construction sites, school busses have ticketing cameras. But on the highway it's cops in cars (and supposedly aircraft) with radar/lidar. Thirty minutes a day on the highway is enough to know there's plenty of people undeterred from driving 40+ mph over the limit (20 mph over is enough to suspend your license after two strikes). I'd guess the 'math' (money, politics, initiative) doesn't work out, or maybe the tech is just rolling out very slowly and hasn't made it here yet.
Post reply on HN