this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
848 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

86279 readers
2451 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
848
Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket (www.gadgetreview.com)
submitted 1 day ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
230 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

It doesn't violate constitutional rights as long as whatever the camera can detect/see would be the same as a police officer. If it has a license plate reader and face detection or whatever it's unconstitutional because an officer probably wouldn't have been able to issue a ticket if it were a person there instead of a camera. If it's something like an obviously missing seatbelt or phone use seen through the window at a reasonable angle it's constitutional.

I don't understand the "face an accuser in court" argument. It's a photo. You argue about the photo with the judge. The photo is your accuser.

[–] Rekonok@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 hours ago

No

The company sending the letter is the acccuser.

They need to explain how they interpreted the photo