A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.

Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.

Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 69 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's the law here. Phone has to be securely stowed. Driving with it on your lap gets you a distracted driving ticket. Even if you weren't planning on looking at it. A sudden traffic move means its falling on the floor and driver is going to try to reach for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Yup. I'm not surprised at Americans being opposed to it, but here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving. The fine itself is issued after a person verifies the photo. And I am fully supportive of it. Driving a motor vehicle is an insanely fucking dangerous task. If your full attention isn't on it, you deserve to receive a fine. Keep the phone stowed securely in a holder, or away in your pocket.

    The freedom of me to be able to make my trip on foot or bike—or even in my own car—without being killed by you far outweighs any idea of freedom you might have to be able to have your phone on your lap.

    Australians and Canadians have some pretty bad entitlement when it comes to driving. But neither of us are anywhere near as entitled as Americans. Discussions like the one in this thread make that very clear. !fuckcars@lemmy.world

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Americans don't love freedom, they love being special. If we apply the law evenly, we can't selectively apply it againsts Blacks, Minorities and Poors. The law is there to keep me comfortable and them in line. If we start applying the laws like I'm not special, it'll just be anarchy.

    Why do you think SovCit nonsense got so big there? Gotta be special, I learned the secret Naval codes that unlock free travel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I’m not surprised at Americans being opposed to it, but here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving.

    They're also against all their movements being recorded, ID requirements for websites, etc. Crazy people, who would ever want to not be tracked every second of their waking lives?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Sure, and I'll agree with them on those points.

    But Americans tend to be the most likely to take things a step too far. Opposing speeding cameras, red light cameras, and phone use cameras is not the same as those things. These are all dangerous but normalised behaviours that should be cracked down on for genuine public safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    I'm not American myself, but phone use cameras can't work without being constantly on. Speeding cameras flash when speeding is detected, red light cameras too. Phone detection requires AI so it's gonna be a constant video stream. Everyone's going to be recorded 24/7 and it doesn't matter if you're driving, cycling or walking. Who says how long the data is being kept and where it's going?

    I tend to think that having speeding cameras in crucial spots is necessary (in some places they straight up exist to collect funds though) and a busy or dangerous intersection absolutely merits a red light camera... But I don't want phone detection cameras purely because of how invasive it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Who says how long the data is being kept and where it’s going?

    The government says. They're the ones operating the cameras. Absolutely, they should not be used for any other purpose than their stated one. No video saved, only still frames kept long enough for the AI to make a determination, and kept longer if that determination is that there was a phone detected, so the photo can be used as evidence.

    But in that situation, where the government is operating it in accordance with security and privacy best practice, the safety benefits far outweigh any theoretical downsides. This is not some theoretical. Over 1000 people die every year in Australia on our roads. Approximately 16% of serious car crashes are linked to mobile phone use.

    We need to stop treating driving like a sacred right, and start treating it like what it is: an incredibly dangerous activity in need of heavy regulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Uh why do you think that the private companies running the service are just going to do what they're told? For that matter, what makes you think the government itself wants a privacy-first solution? It's better to keep data indefinitely in case you need it in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The law. It's a legal requirement. I don't have an insane paranoia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Uhhhh

    The article is about the US where cops are using ALPRs to track their exes

    You REALLY sure people's data is going to be kept safe there?

    Good for you if Australia's government isn't into spying. I personally don't trust a single government to have 24/7 recording video cameras everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    The article is about the US

    The headline is about an event that took place in Australia. The article is just a crap one all around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Ah fun, I didn't even know about that since the original ticket's location is never mentioned.

    Well I'm still with the Americans on them not wanting it there. I don't want it here either. Knowing the EU and my own country in particular, they'll commission a big American tech company to provide it as a service. Maybe Palantir will start offering them lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    They alreayd have all that information, you're just saying you want people to be able to drive while on the phone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    "They already have all that information" should not be the same as "I'm OK with them constantly surveilling me". That kind of thinking is exactly why they can continue to double down on all the crazy surveillance and privacy invasion. You're normalizing not having any privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    No i dont have any privacy when driving on a public road, idk how else it could be. You want privacy then stay in your home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Or decrease the need for cars in the first place with public transport

    And road diets, and modal filters, and bike infrastructure that is wide, separated, given priority at intersections, and ubiquitous. All great ideas I fully support. But even given immense political will those will take decades to fully deliver.

    Meanwhile in a country a 10th the population of America 100s of people die every year because of drivers on phones. For a measure to be effective as a preventative, people need to believe there's a high chance they will actually get caught. That's the most effective predictor. These should not be secretly installed, but accompanied with a public campaign making it clear that they are being installed and that being caught is very likely.

    And people who are caught, more than just a fine, need to face a real chance of losing their licence. Not to be punitive, but because that is what they have demonstrated is necessary for genuine public safety because they are dangerous if they're allowed to drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I know of at least 1 study on human behaviour, where an image of an eye was added to a bathroom and increased the number of people who washed their hands after using the facilities, that suggests people do in fact need the "threat" of feeling they're being watched to behave responsibly.
    Ultimately, when you're in control of something with the potential destructiveness of a car, you do need to be monitored for everyone's safety. The only way to have a society without that level of monitoring is to have one without general access to cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah you shouldn't have guns either, you don't even use them for what you're meant to.
    Cars might not be weapons, but mistakes made or malfunctions that happen while controlling them can cause as much if not far more damage than many weapons, even before including distractions like phones. The options are surveillance or getting rid of cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Well it's been a century, how do you think the educations going?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I am not a fan of the all-seeing panopticon, personally. That said, I personally feel much more entitled to good public transit and walkable neighborhoods than to a car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago

    I have heard bad things about how Flock works in particular with respect to tracking people, abuse of police powers, etc. But it was not involved in the event in this article, and it is not the only way of doing mobile phone detection.

    My state uses a company called Acusensus, which only captures images for long enough to run the AI over them and then deletes all those without even being seen by a human if no offence is detected, among other privacy safeguards. The humans who do review the ones that AI detects as an offence don't even get to see where or when the alleged offence took place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Especially nowadays, there's no reason to have your phone out. Bluetooth connection to infotainment system. Blue tooth add on to old soundsystem. Retro fit systems, or a single one touch ear bud etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving. The fine itself is issued after a person verifies the photo.

    The case in the headline was actually in Queensland, but gadgetreview.com seems to be a terrible site that doesn't give a shit what it's even reporting on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Holy shit that's bad. The headline actually made me suspect that, because that's exactly the cost of the fine here in Qld and I knew it was at least very close. But I clicked the article and it seemed to say it was about somewhere in America. I actually read the article and came away less informed than I started.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Idk apparently we really the need the freedom to drive recklessly fuck this dogshit country lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think this is common everywhere, but especially in the US there is the belief that there are "bad drivers" and "good. drivers" and so when speed cameras or anti-phone device catching someone that looks like them, it's obvious "collateral damage".

    In my experience there are no good drivers, everyone gets distracted sometimes, and the myth of some uniquely "bad drivers" out there allows people to self justify their distracted driving because they aren't one of the out-group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Exactly, everyone tailgates everyone handles their turns like shit, everyone speeds. The only good drivers are the ones sticking to the speed limit in the right lane everyone else drives like they want to die in a fiery crash. Oh but everyone slows down to rubber neck someone on the shoulder.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    My uncle once wrapped his car around a telephone pole because an orange fell off the seat and he was trying to pick it up.

    I feel like there’s a clever fruit/apple/iphone joke in there somewhere but I can’t find it and I give up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    A coworker hit a parked car that way. Turning a RH corner he hooked his arm through the steering wheel to get to the passenger side, then popped up to see himself rear ending a car

  • source
  • parent