1053
Photo enforcement cameras (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
214 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

There are obviously alternatives, I don't deny that. But as good as infrastructure and cultural improvements can be, it doesn't change the fact that speeding cameras have proven themselves to be immensely effective, and don't require massive infrastructure projects, much more costly spending, and long-time cultural shifts. That's just the unfortunate reality of the situation.

I'm a big digital rights and privacy advocate, and I don't advocate for "spy cameras." I advocate for privacy-preserving systems that improve society when they can exist in such a way.

A camera that only sends your plate to a police system when you speed, and automatically sends you a ticket for endangering other people is not a surveillance system. It's a public safety measure, with justifiable, minimum data transmission requirements to operate effectively. A system that tracks every location your plate was seen is a surveillance system. That is not what non-"smart" traffic cameras are.

Speeding cameras are the first system, unless integrated with an ALPR system, in which case they become a surveillance system. I am advocating for the former, not the latter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Or, why not just build roads that inhibit speeding? It's safer, or doesn't allow anyone to track people, and you're not advocating for a surveillance state.

    Whether you like it or not, the second that "Speeding Camera" goes online, it becomes a surveillance device. The only thing stopping bad actors are laws which like speeding, are constantly broken. You're fucked if your government is the bad actor.

    Advocate for designing streets that reduce speed, not adding surveillance cameras and pretending that the safety reduction is worth the invasion of your privacy.

    Anybody can hack a camera, no one can hack an already built road. You're pretending like these cameras aren't easy as fuck to access.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    You can build infrastructure that encourages reasonable people to drive slower (an example I'm thinking of - you can remove priority rules at a junction and force drivers to negotiate it on a more ad hoc basis, which requires a lower speed to see what everyone is doing). You can't build infrastructure which does this for everyone. Joe Twatface will just speed through that junction and let everyone else slam their brakes on.

    A lot of features that discourage dangerous driving also prevent emergency vehicles from going at high speed.

    On faster roads, these traffic-calming measures are generally undesirable also.

    So: the methods are limited and have disadvantages. Traffic cameras can fill in the gaps.

    If your traffic cameras are accessible to private companies who can misuse that data, that's a problem that needs to be addressed in legislation. If your traffic cameras are accessible to police who are fundamentally compromised as part of a proto-fascist state apparatus, it'd be good to link your protests against cameras (which exist all around the world) to their use by proto-fascists (which haven't co-opted the government all around the world, yet). And there are probably more effective ways of disrupting them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Or, why not just build roads that inhibit speeding

    As I already stated, doing that is not quick, easy, or cheap. Mounting a camera to a pole is much more cost effective, and quick to set up in the short term, even if it's not the ideal long-term solution.

    They've been proven to reduce speed, injuries, and deaths, and there's vanishingly few cases in which regular, non-"smart" traffic cameras operating under the technological standards I mentioned have ever been utilized for any form of surveillance that produced a measurable harm for any individual, that I could find. That is why I advocate for those, not for "smart" ones like Flock's.

    I don't think it should be a permanent solution, but I'd rather have speed cameras now, with road improvements later, over zero measures to prevent speeding now, with the hope that traffic calming infrastructure will be feasible and actually get done later down the line. Infrastructure isn't free, and cameras aren't either, but cameras are a hell of a lot cheaper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    A camera is a camera, and there are no lightpole cameras that are SD Card read only with no access to the internet.

    You know what that means right? That anybody can access them if they're smart enough? You keep reiterating the same thing while fundamentally not understanding, or choosing not to care that a camera is a camera. Don't give up your privacy just because it's the cheaper option.

    You clearly are fine being surveiled though so this conversation is pointless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    That anybody can access them if they’re smart enough?

    Not all cameras have security vulnerabilities. Assuming it's a matter of "smarts" is ridiculous. Plain old traffic cameras that solely detect speeding, especially those installed without additional "smart" features like Flock's, rarely have breaches, because they are by their very nature quite simple systems.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, or that cases don't exist, but I've seen far more harm come from actual, preventable traffic deaths than I've seen from hacked speeding cameras. I've seen zero instances of that being used to cause harm, thus far.

    You clearly are fine being surveiled though

    I am not. That is why I am clearly advocating solely for systems with a design that reduces the chances of remote access, can't engage in mass surveillance, and only send data on those actively speeding, while never transmitting anything about literally everybody else. Have you even read my comments?

    You clearly don't get my points, I'm sorry if I'm somehow not explaining them clearly enough, but fine, I'm done. You win, or whatever. Good job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    All cameras have security vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities are the idiots installing them, how do i know? It's literally my job.

    You can keep on acting all high and mighty thinking that speeding cameras only detect speed, totally never get hacked, and definitely could never be used to track someone or abused in other ways.

    Youre just wrong, an thats really all there is to it. You have WAY to much faith in the people putting up speeding cameras. They don't give a shit whether or not it's secure, it doesn't make money to care that it's secure.

    I don't know why you insist on living in fantasy island where things never go wrong, people never gain access to cameras, and the people installing them are using state of the art top notch never been made before secure camera.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent