Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers breaking the law in its first 3 days.
www.businessinsider.in
The AI system, designed by tech company Acusensus, takes photos of passing vehicles and flags those with potential offenses.

Police in England installed an AI camera system along a major road. It caught almost 300 drivers in its first 3 days.::An AI camera system installed along a major road in England caught 300 offenses in its first 3 days.There were 180 seat belt offenses and 117 mobile phone

  • Thorny_ThicketEnglish
    65·
    1 year ago

    In it’s current form it’s good technology. It’s all fine as long as you’re chasing after crimes we all agree are bad* It’s the slippery slope I’m worried about. Just a matter of time untill this is going to be used for something malicious we don’t agree with.

    *I don’t care if front seat passengers wear a seatbelt or not as long as they’re adults.

    • The King@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      1 year ago

      The slippery slope is what makes this not okay. It’s a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy in the guise of “safety”.

      I’d love to see some statistics showing that these things are anything other than an additional tax on the drivers. This is bad for everyone and it desensitizes you and opens the door to further surveillance I’m the future.

      • steltek@lemm.eeEnglish
        142·
        1 year ago

        “Slippery slope” is a common argument but usually flawed. In this case, driving is an extraordinarily regulated privilege and despite that, it still results in massive deaths and permanent life changing injury every year. In the US, car crashes are the number one cause of death for children. It’s difficult to draw a line between expanding driving enforcement to gross losses in privacy like many here are envisioning.

        It also ignores the benefits to civil rights. Again, I don’t know about the UK but in the US, traffic enforcement by police is very unevenly applied. Minorities routinely get their privacy violated on pretexts while cops don’t even pay lip service to the rules.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        144·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t though.

        It isn’t unnecessary invasion of privacy. You have no expectation of privacy when driving around on public streets, and to say you’re allowed to break the law and use personal privacy as an excuse is absurd.

        • bladerunnerspider@lemmy.worldEnglish
          81·
          1 year ago

          While I don’t disagree with the statement around privacy in public, I would encourage you to temper that thought with the realization that when that was developed we did not have the ability to be everywhere at once with cameras or fly drones over people’s homes or track cellphones with GPS or use computers to process this information.

          This information can and has been abused.

          Maybe we should change our expectations to SOME privacy in public.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
            42·
            1 year ago

            Happens to celebrities. The reason it doesn’t happen to me is I’m not very interesting.

            But it been annoying isn’t really the point it’s not how the law works. I don’t make the law, I’m just pointing out that how the law works, and under the law you have no expectation of privacy in public.

          • steltek@lemm.eeEnglish
            54·
            1 year ago

            A beautiful strawman. This is about driving and traffic enforcement by the government, not creepy campus stalking by a crazy person.

            There is no conceivable reality where the government will publicly post your movements for everyone to see based this system. None.

      • ours@lemmy.filmEnglish
        52·
        1 year ago

        The issue is these people getting into accidents requiring preventable extensive medical help is not just a private matter.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
            31·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry but I don’t agree that just because you want to do something means you should have an automatic right to do that thing. Freedom to do what you want has to be tempered against the damage that is done to society by you doing that thing.

            Yeah take not wearing a seatbelt, the damage to society, the amount of money society has to expend if you mess up and crash is a lot higher if you’re not wearing a seat belt than if you were. Given that the damage to society, the amount of money your actions cost to fix, I think it’s acceptable that the ability to not wear a seatbelt is a restricted freedom.

            We don’t all live in a universe where every action we take has no consequences. Every time you decide to be an idiot, you are not just affecting yourself, but everyone else as well.

            Take smoking in public, that freedom has been restricted in most countries in the world because quite a lot of people don’t want to have to breathe in your smoke. It’s not about you, it’s about how your actions affect everyone else.

            Selfish people don’t like this because they think that they should be allowed to be a jackass to everyone and no one else should have the right or authority to prevent them from doing that. The jackasses are by default not operating within the established rules of civilisation, they wish to be independent of it but still make use of it.

            And to put it technically, they can sod off.