New York is using cameras with microphones to ticket loud cars • Hacker News Board

Re: New York is using cameras with microphones to ticket loud cars

#481

Post by margalabargala » Sun, Feb 20, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

ambrozk wrote: post #479

margalabargala wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to use a camera as evidence in, say, a robbery. The camera will show you actually committing the crime. If you're speeding, something's measuring your speed based on camera images. The method used to determine speed is not described in detail, just "trust us, they were going the speed we say". It's not generally the city who is doing this, but a third-party private company which sometimes is paid per ticket…

I can definitely see these systems being used illegitimately, but this has nothing to do with whether you can face your accuser. A software company telling you that you cannot validate the methodology of their measurement instrument is definitely troubling, but it is not fundamentally dissimilar to the police using speed guns whose internals you cannot inspect to convict you of speeding. Even more problematic than ei…

> there are significant benefits to automated enforcement

Could you elaborate on what you think the benefits are?

I'm of the opinion that systems that indiscriminately check whether all people nearby are currently committing a crime should not be things we should be building in our society. I would prefer there be a reason to suspect a person of a crime, and pursue on a targeted basis, rather than simply have panopticons charging people with crimes.

For example- with the system in this article, I would prefer if a person were required to call in and complain "there was a too-noisy car at this location at this time", and then a person reviewed footage from that location at that time and determined whether to send a ticket out or not.

Regarding your points about transparency, I completely agree with you.

Re: New York is using cameras with microphones to ticket loud cars

#482

Post by SilasX » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #480

SilasX wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said: >>In my opinion, they should be deemed unconstitutional via a violation of rights against search and seizure The only things searched are that very same deafening noises that everyone has to hear without any effort on their part. If you're saying that's a violation of search and seizure, you're saying there's some expectation of privacy around the violation being prosecuted. If not, what are you saying was…

I feel like you're trying to force a very specific wording, "expectation of privacy", that doesn't fit very well with what I'm trying to describe, because in different contexts there can be different definitions/interpretations/kinds of "privacy". For example, if one is driving down a public street, obviously one does not have an expectation of "privacy" in the traditional sense. If everyone driving down a public str…

>I feel like you're trying to force a very specific wording, "expectation of privacy", that doesn't fit very well with what I'm trying to describe

You referred to constitutional search and seizure, referencing the 4th amendment. The things protected by the 4th amendment are generally referred to as the things you have an "expectation of privacy" in; I was just using the relevant jargon for the situation.

>Obviously that isn't an unconstitutional search under current interpretations of laws, but I think it ought to be.

Yeah, I got where you're coming from. It's just ... very dubious, for exactly the reason I gave, and which you had a chance to reply to, but elected to nitpick my (appropriate) jargon instead.

Yes, privacy is a thing that should be respected. But in no reasonable interpretation does privacy apply to something that you force a large number of indiscriminate, unconsenting people to observe, through no effort of their own. Whatever privacy applies to -- and there's plenty of room for disagreement otherwise -- it can't reasonably apply to that.

The "search" in question happened by passively observing the very same thing that the huge number of indiscriminate people were forced to observe anyway, only with quantifiable numbers for consistency. That can't have an expectation or pr-- er, can't count as an unreasonable search. They did not touch the vehicle. They did not look inside it. They simply received the very conspicuous observables that it threw off into its environs, for the purpose of enforcing the law against throwing that specific observable, that time.

There are many issues you can come up related to prosecuting that. "But you searched my private space" is not one of them.

Re: New York is using cameras with microphones to ticket loud cars

#483

Post by ambrozk » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 11:17 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #481

ambrozk wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can definitely see these systems being used illegitimately, but this has nothing to do with whether you can face your accuser. A software company telling you that you cannot validate the methodology of their measurement instrument is definitely troubling, but it is not fundamentally dissimilar to the police using speed guns whose internals you cannot inspect to convict you of speeding. Even more problematic than ei…

> there are significant benefits to automated enforcement Could you elaborate on what you think the benefits are? I'm of the opinion that systems that indiscriminately check whether all people nearby are currently committing a crime should not be things we should be building in our society. I would prefer there be a reason to suspect a person of a crime, and pursue on a targeted basis, rather than simply have panopti…

> Could you elaborate on what you think the benefits are?

Very simply, I don't want people driving around New York with blown-out mufflers. I have to deal with these people all the time. They are a constant, low-level annoyance that lowers quality of life for everyone in the city. Presently, there are presently no consequences for this sort of selfish behavior, and I'd like that to change by ticketing the perpetrators.

I don't understand what the added value is in making ordinary New Yorkers call the police with a time and cross-street as a precondition for a summons. What are we gaining here? Are we trying to validate the existence of a victim? Of course there is a victim -- there is hardly a block of the city where a loud motorist will not be negatively impacting a resident's life. This place is incredibly crowded. People live almost everywhere. Are we assuming that a manual reviewer is going to be more effective than an automated system? How? At the end of the day, they're going to have to base their judgment on a decibel reading anyways.