Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

Post by duped » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 9:06 PM UTC

pdar4123 wrote: post #235

rbalicki wrote: post #6

Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially dis…

Seems like a great idea. The police should do this… bring back red light cameras and automated speed traps.

Post by Wytwwww » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 9:07 PM UTC

iwishiknewlisp wrote: post #150

IncreasePosts wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me how you can claim most of these drivers don't have insurance. Also. Nothing is stopping Karen's from reporting things right now. So what if they do? If you've done nothing wrong then the reviewer would just trash it. And probably put Karen's reports in the "immediately discard" pile in the future if she sends in frivolous claims all the time.

Around 10-30% of drivers in the United States don't have car insurance depending on the state. It really depends on the state on how strict they are with car insurance. My state is very lax and they don't even really check at the DMV. The fine for not having car insurance is also only ~300 bucks and a 90 day license suspension and it only goes up slightly until like the 4-5 time you get caught. It just honestly doesn…

Post by lupire » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 9:09 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #243

loteck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incidental and systemic benefits of the recordings are exciting to people and celebrated with stories. The hazards of this constant "pollution" of data — how it is slowly changing our society, our economy, our humanity — is harder to quantify or build opposition to. It's a bit like climate change. Slow, invisible poison.

Law simply needs to internalize encryption. Your cameras are your property and only with consent of owner are they available to authorities. Public cameras should only be decrypted for evidence to support litigation of crimes, not for police to search for violay, because the current gigantic book of laws has an implicit assumption of a difficulty to enforce. If suddenly police could use AI to fully prosecute all viol…

Post by ta8645 » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 9:10 PM UTC

mft_ wrote: post #236

pmichaud wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside the obvious dystopian next steps, I think the main problem with automated traffic law enforcement is that our laws are quite bad in the sense that they rely on enforcement being loose and somewhat subjective to even work at all. The speeds on various roads, the timing of traffic lights, the places one can park and for how long, etc, are not carefully planned or thought out enough to actually work if eve…

I’m struggling to understand your point, or to imagine many examples which support it. I agree that brief minor parking infringements may occasionally make people’s lives more efficient; but I can’t think of any examples where traffic lights and speed limits need to be routinely disregarded?

Post by bartonfink » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 9:14 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #252

aftbit wrote: post #122

Creepy stuff. Maybe we ought not to constantly record everything happening around us all the time.

Is there any tangible reason that would actually weight enough to justify not actively wanting to provide basically free resources in help of uncovering (and in effect: preventing) a violent crime? Because, if not, this is about as "creepy" as those nerdy guys sitting in their bedrooms and basements, tinkering with their silly computers all day, meaning: Non-conformist and something you might just not be ready to thi…