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

  • xT1TANx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2110·
    1 year ago

    I understand your pov but I feel it’s misplaced. You are in public in a vehicle. You are in public on a side walk. The same laws that have been used to record police are the same being used here. You have no expectation of privacy in public and if you are seen or recorded breaking a law that is on you.

        • NuPNuA@lemm.eeEnglish
          41·
          1 year ago

          You know the Constitution has no power in the UK where this camera is right? Not that I’m opposed to it.

          • xT1TANx@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            The post I responded to indicated the US and UK. Of course I know that we never invaded and subjugated the English. Clearly I was talking about the US, so ya got me. Pat yourself on the back.

    • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      62·
      1 year ago

      Just because someone is in public doesn’t mean that they need to be under 24/7 surveillance by big brother. Isn’t England already infested with security cameras? The US is pretty lousy with them in some places and if I knew they were actively watching me I’d make a habit of breaking them, not praise them for helping to overpolice every square inch of the country

      • xT1TANx@lemmy.worldEnglish
        13·
        1 year ago

        Again, if you can be seen in public you already are. Anyone is a witness to your crimes.

            • CalvinCopyright@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Allow me to rephrase that. If an authority figure wants to prosecute you for whatever reason, even if you’ve been perfectly “legal”, they will make up a crime you committed based on something they didn’t like about you. This driving-camera crap just gives them more opportunities.

              I got ticketed not too long ago because a police officer thought I was texting when I wasn’t doing anything other than looking at Google Maps. You don’t have to have committed a crime. You just have to have yourself recorded in a way that looks like you might have committed a crime. There is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE between those qualifiers, and it is ripe for abuse. Innocence doesn’t prove innocence, and proving innocence is what matters.

              • xT1TANx@lemmy.worldEnglish
                21·
                1 year ago

                Hey, sorry to hear you got hosed. I think the thing a lot of people who follow cases of police corruption are beginning to realize is always be filming yourself in your car. Have front and rear cams and to your point here, having an in cabin camera might not be bad. It sucks that this is where we are unfortunately. Have the evidence of your innocence.

                  • xT1TANx@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    1 year ago

                    Look, you can complain about this all you want. If you do not like it, you have the opportunity to take it up with your representatives ( hopefully ) and see if laws can be changed, but in the US, this is the reality. Anyone can film you in public. It’s protected under the constitution while you are in public. If you break a law on camera then you can be punished for it. If you don’t want that to happen, take steps to ensure you’re not falsy accused. It’s simple logic.

                    None of what I said has any opinion in it. It’s the reality of the modern world. I don’t like or dislike it. It’s just how it’s going to be unless we alter the First Amendment of the US constitution and that’s highly unlikely in the US.