It would be shocking if this didn't exist. This is minimally competent policing.
That's just something on the TV shows.
As far as I can tell, the police were told to stop shooting unarmed black people so they just stopped doing anything.
Based on true crime podcasts, I thought that when you wanted to locate someone, you had to go to stores and ask them individually for their cameras that happened to catch part of the street. I somehow hadn't realized police just google our daily lives in their private database.
This stuff is sufficiently off-the-shelf that I have wondered if someone should set up a public database, using cameras out the window of their houses, etc. Kind of like https://adsbexchange.com/ but for cars.
Really, the fun variation of it would be to only register/allow searches for vehicles known to belong to government/law enforcement.
Not just intersections. They mount them on cars and roll through parking lots. Every repo company's tow trucks have mounted readers feeding into the same database.
Weirdly, you can apparently drive around with no visible plate now. At least no one seems to do anything.
Oddly, from what I can tell Flock only does LPRs to look for cars of interest and other potential crimes - not traffic enforcement. Speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. are a different breed and although they may sometimes hook into law enforcement in other ways, it's not the Flock network.
Ring (cameras) was problematic for a while there. Supposedly they cleaned up their act: https://apnews.com/article/ring-amazon-camera-police-request-56a128dcd77a4cb0b27d71be9384fe1a
It's a sad state of affairs, when upper-middle-class people have to treat the po-po as an occupying force. Ah well. Same as it ever was: we just didn't know it before.
Ring (cameras) was problematic for a while there. Supposedly they cleaned up their act: https://apnews.com/article/ring-amazon-camera-police-request-56a128dcd77a4cb0b27d71be9384fe1a
It's a sad state of affairs, when upper-middle-class people have to treat the po-po as an occupying force. Ah well. Same as it ever was: we just didn't know it before.
They're going up in a few bay area communities; I'd assumed that they were traffic enforcement, so 8 is an interesting development. (Light and street poles have to be checked to make sure that they have reserve capacity, since cameras and their accessories catch wind, etc.)
California is going to be trialing speed cameras but per 8 that must be a different vendor or at least different tech. I assume it will be like red light enforcement where it's not just the plate that's recorded, they also need to record who was driving.
There must be a huge difference in data processing between storing photos and storing plate numbers after running OCR on the plates, which I assume is how they "read" them.
I assume it will be like red light enforcement where it's not just the plate that's recorded, they also need to record who was driving.
I wouldn't assume that. Text from the law allowing the six named cities to do speed camera pilots:
The speed safety system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to registered owners of those vehicles based on that evidence.
Do red light cameras require proof the person was driving? I thought it was generally accepted that the registered owner takes responsibility for their vehicle's infractions, as long as it wasn't stolen or something.
The list of opponents to that bill is a hilarious combo emcompassing motorists, motorcyclists, cops, Teamsters, ACLU, EFF, and BLM California. (Even though it specified the photos were confidential, could only be used by public agencies for issuing those specific fines, and had to be deleted 60 days after final disposition of the fine.)
I think camera-based tickets-by-mail is illegal here.
Sacramento County explainer: "Citations issued by automated enforcement systems (red light cameras) are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the incident."
They can't get your address from your face (yet), so I don't know who else they would send the ticket to. But IIRC, "I wasn't the driver" is an allowable defense.
Oh, I see - the ticket goes to the owner, then to get out of it the owner has to raise the defense that they weren't driving, then use the photos or other evidence to make that fly in court.
Looks like the speed camera system is not set up with that defense, or at least it may not be automatically taken.
Quick searching suggests* that California may be unusual in the amount of evidence required for a red light camera ticket: identify the driver, photo shows the state of the lights and car at the time of the (alleged) violation, possibly video footage needed as well?
* Some of the websites with red light enforcement info may be have questionable legal expertise.
18 that's why whenever I'm speeding I wear a Richard Nixon mask
||
NMM to either Brian Wilson or Haris Yulin
|>