Technology

obviously LLM-generated article from an odd outlet that publishes five articles every hour

the news is real because it just regurgitates 404media

I remember the NSA massive surveillance machine during the George W. Bush administration and Obama administration that tracked phone metadata and internet traffic that left or entered the US (which was used to justify a lot of surveillance of US citizens). Even after the Snowden disclosures of 2013 we were promised that the system was only meant to track foreign terrorists.

Then we learned that DEA had full access to it, and that NSA was sending hints to law enforcement about large amounts of cash in transit so it could be intercepted for purposes of asset forfeiture, what is nothing short of robbery of civilians by law enforcement officers.

This is an example of mission creep, in this case how it affects the surveillance state. Once we allow a method or technology to be used for major crime (like terrorism), it will eventually be used even for minor crime (like drug possession or distracted driving).

It's very common for courts to forgive a violation of fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search when the violation presents evidence for a major crime, but then that case will be used as precedent when the same violation occurs and discovers a minor infraction.

This is how, during the aughts and 2010s, the Fourth Amendment was gutted by a long run of carve-outs. Now, a police officer or state agent can violate your privacy without a warrant via a whole range of exceptions:

~ If the crime they discover is significant (SCOTUS suggested controlled substance possession as an example)
~ Using specialized technology, say long-range multi-spectrum cameras, or using a drone.
~ If probable cause can be established. A favorite is a detection dog that signals on anything and has a 90%+ false positive rate.¹ (This is a particular beef of mine, since fake detection dogs are now more common than actual detection dogs, and dogs are losing their presumption of regularity as a result.)
~ If the police officer was acting in good faith, which is obtusely defined and is very hard to disprove. ~ If the suspect is non-white or otherwise suspicious due prejudice. Really, in a lot of counties, law enforcement are allowed to operate on hunches, or have a suspicious activity parameter list that is so encompassing (and often contradictory) that it's impossible to be credulous.

If you want to know how we got here these were already problems during the Obama administration when we had allegedly reasonable people in elected offices. And while they discussed the risk of too much power falling into the wrong hands, they felt compelled to keep it.

Whether the One Ring, or the Ring of Gyges, power without consequence is too seductive.

¹ A similar issue is the $2 roadside drug test which reacts to a lot of substances that aren't controlled, such as glazed sugar off a donut. These were originally supposed to be then verified later in a lab, but instead were used to establish probable cause, and eventually were used as evidence in court.

Let's be sure to name and shame, for anyone who missed it: Georgia and Florida.

Company is - you guessed it - Flock.

In some jurisdictions, yes

Meanwhile in NYC they're only allowed to put traffic cameras in school zones, they're speed-based only, the fine is like $100, and drivers can rack up dozens of tickets without any consequence to the standing of their drivers license.

I dunno man, I feel like there's a happy medium in traffic enforcement automation between these two extremes? It's almost as if stuff like the Georgia example exists to provide ammunition to the opponents in NYC who successfully defanged traffic cameras up there. With a thin veneer over the top that this is about surveillance.

Flock cameras, AI surveillance, etc is bad. But the specific examples and criticisms being brought up, like this one, feel very disingenuous in the face of how many Americans die to distracted drivers every year. Like are we actually pushing back against AI state surveillance, or are we defending the "right" of motorists to be wildly dangerous to those around them?

Unconstitutional. Get that stupid ass shit dismissed in court.

I don't know what town it is exactly (Kirkland or Kenmore, WA), and they had a speed limit posted as 30mph., but gave my friend a ticket for going over 28 in a 25 zone. They grayed out the speed limit in the photo they sent that was approved by a cop. My friend would've had to go and get a picture of the sign to prove what assholes they were. I remember the sign and know for a fact that it said 30. Not enough to fight it, but enough to stay the fuck away from that town.

Like I said on a similar thread - we already lost our feedom. They're just installing the shackles now.

Per the article this was not a Flock cam. FYI.