728

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
[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 13 points 12 hours ago

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?

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au -3 points 10 hours ago

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.

[-] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If we have to have cameras on every corner for "public safety" we've gone wrong somewhere our set up of society. Do I think people should be on their phone while driving? No -- I don't even think people should be talking or listening to music while driving. The question is where do we draw the line? Do I get to decide where the line is drawn? Do you get to? Let's not pretend things were decided democratically or for the public good when they obviously weren't -- because there are no democracies (yet) and cops wouldn't need to lobby or propagandize so hard if it were actually for the public good. The world is setting up surveillance states and eventually those states will make laws that go too far. It's a lot more sensible to leave people alone until they interfere with someone else.

Fees and surveillance like this isn't even a preventative measure. If you actually want to prevent harm, use public information campaigns. Or decrease the need for cars in the first place with public transport...

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 14 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au -2 points 8 hours ago

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.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 hours ago

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.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
728 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

86252 readers
3899 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS