I can see different degrees of this. I agree that I’d rather have a visible presence in traffic monitoring that helps remind people they are being watched for adherence to the rules of the road, and give people who are pushing the limits an opportunity to fix it rather than catch them. So speed traps for money quotas or a door to gain access to vehicles to find or “create” issues (usually based on profiling) is the problem here. As well as abuse of the power to be able to speed and ignore the same rules when an emergency isn’t pending, or escalating a traffic stop beyond what it was originally for again because of the power trip.
My response to the typical complaining about speed traps isn’t usually first to focus on the police, but to ask, “well, were you speeding or driving recklessly?” When someone gets mad from that question, then the problem may not be (just) the police.
That last part really sounds like “Well, what did you do to deserve getting hit in the first place?” to me.
We have rights to privacy and willfully giving them up for policing activities should be met with resistance. As Ben Franklin intimated, those that would give up liberty for security or power deserve none of those things. The founding fathers were pretty pro-privacy and went to a lot of trouble to be very outspoken about it. Not only in the Constitution, but in lots of original state’s Declarations of Rights, and they seem pretty into the idea that people shouldn’t be being targeted for punitive legal action unless there’s a warrant or probable cause, and passive surveillance is targeting anyone and everyone that passes by it all the time.
ETA an Upton Sinclair quote that seems relevant: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” I think about that a lot. Others should, too.
So what do you propose for the narrow subject of speed limits or other rules of the road? It seems enforcement of them (which btw is very lacking otherwise people wouldn’t speed so much) is off the table since that’s a violation of privacy in your opinion. So honor system?
I agree with you on a broad scale, privacy is more important and government doesn’t belong in many places. But using a speeding post to bounce that off of is a weird take. There are many rules and regulations written in blood, and road laws are included in that. And without someone enforcing the laws (but not using that enforcement as a way to abuse power) it’s a free-for-all.
We could certainly discuss the details of traffic stops, speed trap designs and motives, and of course abuse of power. My little comment was simply that if you aren’t speeding, and there isn’t that abuse going on, why would they pull you over, and why would you care if they are watching for others who are going too fast?
Right, it still boils down to: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I get that you’re accepting that philosophy. I reject it. Using robots for surveillance state activities is a thing we, as a society, should emphatically take a stand against.
No, it boils down to whether or not you want some enforcement at all of the laws. If you don’t, then monitoring speeding and driving shouldn’t be done. Using privacy arguments for how you behave on a public motorway is a ridiculous stretch. It also muddies the water of the real problems with law enforcement issues, aka the police problem. Catching speeders is not one of these.
We’ve had enforcement without cameras and automation for generations. Gimme a break. You’re just advocating for enforcement by robots instead of by actual people. That’s not a good future to continue working toward.
If you’re wanting to beat strawmen, fine, but I never once mentioned robots, you brought it up and it had nothing to do with anything I’ve said. I even agree that automation is a dangerous route, as the AI craze is showing, but that’s not how this thread started or even was about.
I can see different degrees of this. I agree that I’d rather have a visible presence in traffic monitoring that helps remind people they are being watched for adherence to the rules of the road, and give people who are pushing the limits an opportunity to fix it rather than catch them. So speed traps for money quotas or a door to gain access to vehicles to find or “create” issues (usually based on profiling) is the problem here. As well as abuse of the power to be able to speed and ignore the same rules when an emergency isn’t pending, or escalating a traffic stop beyond what it was originally for again because of the power trip.
My response to the typical complaining about speed traps isn’t usually first to focus on the police, but to ask, “well, were you speeding or driving recklessly?” When someone gets mad from that question, then the problem may not be (just) the police.
That last part really sounds like “Well, what did you do to deserve getting hit in the first place?” to me.
We have rights to privacy and willfully giving them up for policing activities should be met with resistance. As Ben Franklin intimated, those that would give up liberty for security or power deserve none of those things. The founding fathers were pretty pro-privacy and went to a lot of trouble to be very outspoken about it. Not only in the Constitution, but in lots of original state’s Declarations of Rights, and they seem pretty into the idea that people shouldn’t be being targeted for punitive legal action unless there’s a warrant or probable cause, and passive surveillance is targeting anyone and everyone that passes by it all the time.
ETA an Upton Sinclair quote that seems relevant: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” I think about that a lot. Others should, too.
One more edit, a link to the actual Sinclair text: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1558/1558-h/1558-h.htm#link2H_4_0047
So what do you propose for the narrow subject of speed limits or other rules of the road? It seems enforcement of them (which btw is very lacking otherwise people wouldn’t speed so much) is off the table since that’s a violation of privacy in your opinion. So honor system?
I agree with you on a broad scale, privacy is more important and government doesn’t belong in many places. But using a speeding post to bounce that off of is a weird take. There are many rules and regulations written in blood, and road laws are included in that. And without someone enforcing the laws (but not using that enforcement as a way to abuse power) it’s a free-for-all.
We could certainly discuss the details of traffic stops, speed trap designs and motives, and of course abuse of power. My little comment was simply that if you aren’t speeding, and there isn’t that abuse going on, why would they pull you over, and why would you care if they are watching for others who are going too fast?
Right, it still boils down to: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I get that you’re accepting that philosophy. I reject it. Using robots for surveillance state activities is a thing we, as a society, should emphatically take a stand against.
No, it boils down to whether or not you want some enforcement at all of the laws. If you don’t, then monitoring speeding and driving shouldn’t be done. Using privacy arguments for how you behave on a public motorway is a ridiculous stretch. It also muddies the water of the real problems with law enforcement issues, aka the police problem. Catching speeders is not one of these.
We’ve had enforcement without cameras and automation for generations. Gimme a break. You’re just advocating for enforcement by robots instead of by actual people. That’s not a good future to continue working toward.
If you’re wanting to beat strawmen, fine, but I never once mentioned robots, you brought it up and it had nothing to do with anything I’ve said. I even agree that automation is a dangerous route, as the AI craze is showing, but that’s not how this thread started or even was about.
Cameras watching and enforcing traffic laws is giving control to robots instead of people.
Edit to add: look into Clearview AI and then tell me you are still ok with copious public cameras and AI for police use.
Police officers should be people, and they should be seen, especially when patrolling
Lol, I never said any of that. Arguing just to argue.