this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
830 points (92.2% liked)
memes
18220 readers
2852 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These aren't about speed anymore, they're all turning into auto license plate readers run by private corporations for an infinite surveillance dragnet
You don't have a speedtrap issue, you have private vulture issue. Signing the enforcement right to private company is a recipe for disaster.
Sure, yeah if they were only used to snap pictures of people speeding I wouldn't have a problem but that's not what they're limited to.
Edit: For everyone downvoting me, please read my follow-up responses. I'm not advocating for surveillance, I'm advocating for privacy-preserving systems that simply send a ticket if you speed, without recording your location every single time you pass any camera, rather than a system that does, because that's actually a surveillance network.
As much as it's true that a lot of these cameras are just becoming other ways to engage in surveillance, it's also true that they do a lot to manage speeding. For example, NYC had a 94% reduction in speeding in areas with the cameras. It's also true that most existing speed cameras simply aren't equipped to be converted into ALPR systems. Most ALPR deployments are done via the installation of brand-new hardware, which many places simply can't justify the additional, new costs of.
This can be done with minimal surveillance capabilities, and often is in many places. (local compute board identifies license plates, calculates speeds, sends them to an isolated cloud service, and only forwards data to the police department if it was actually a speeding infraction, otherwise the data is wiped) The ALPR cameras are primarily being installed in specific areas, but aren't always across-the-board implementations, and sometimes avoid entire cities.
For example, ALPRs are becoming popular around Washington, but the Seattle police department only has a few ALPRs solely mounted on vehicles, but zero mounted in stationary locations. ("SPD’s ALPR cameras are not fixed in location") These aren't even used for speeding cases, but are used for missing vehicle cases, and the speeding cameras are entirely separate.
It doesn't make sense to eliminate all cameras, even the speeding ones, just because other cameras can be ALPRs. We should simply advocate for removing ALPRs, not speeding cameras. This is why organizations like the EFF, dedicated to protecting people's privacy, have previously argued against these cameras broadly not because speeding cameras are also bad, but because the way those speeding camera systems were designed allowed them to also be used as ALPRs. However, I haven't seen a single case of them arguing against cameras that are solely speeding cameras with limited capacity for surveillance, because it's just not a very big issue.
Sorry, long rant 😅
damn that sucks bro, I'm cutting down the camera anyway because we live under the beginning fourth reich and surveillance must be fought.
Maybe police should go back to being visible on the street to control driver behavior and city road design be built around calming traffic patterns, instead of using completely undercover normal looking vehicles for traffic enforcement and then raking in millions of dollars by sitting on their ass and letting the camera do all the work?
I'd rather avoid inflating police budgets if I can help it. Especially since such a system then lends itself to those same cops advocating for increased surveillance measures because it makes their job easier. They're the people who wanted the built-in ALPR systems, after all.
100% agree. Yet while I want these to be more widespread, they take money, time, and lots of urban planning. In the meantime, I see traffic cameras (specifically those NOT integrated with ALPR systems that store locations in a central database) as a good stopgap solution for areas that don't yet/can't build out those measures in a reasonable timeframe.
Also agreed. The pigs don't need more money for doing less work, hence why I think the prior idea of having them be visible is still a bad idea, because they can simply sit there and... also do nothing.
And if they set quotas, then the measure becomes a goal, and it ceases to be a good measure, as cops will just pull more people over because it "seemed like they were going fast", and everyone's days get just a little bit worse.
Fuck your spy cameras. If speeding was really an issue they have the technology to prevent it. Every day I hear dumber and dumber ideas and thoughts and I just want to move out of this country.
There are obviously alternatives, I don't deny that. But as good as infrastructure and cultural improvements can be, it doesn't change the fact that speeding cameras have proven themselves to be immensely effective, and don't require massive infrastructure projects, much more costly spending, and long-time cultural shifts. That's just the unfortunate reality of the situation.
I'm a big digital rights and privacy advocate, and I don't advocate for "spy cameras." I advocate for privacy-preserving systems that improve society when they can exist in such a way.
A camera that only sends your plate to a police system when you speed, and automatically sends you a ticket for endangering other people is not a surveillance system. It's a public safety measure, with justifiable, minimum data transmission requirements to operate effectively. A system that tracks every location your plate was seen is a surveillance system. That is not what non-"smart" traffic cameras are.
Speeding cameras are the first system, unless integrated with an ALPR system, in which case they become a surveillance system. I am advocating for the former, not the latter.
Or, why not just build roads that inhibit speeding? It's safer, or doesn't allow anyone to track people, and you're not advocating for a surveillance state.
Whether you like it or not, the second that "Speeding Camera" goes online, it becomes a surveillance device. The only thing stopping bad actors are laws which like speeding, are constantly broken. You're fucked if your government is the bad actor.
Advocate for designing streets that reduce speed, not adding surveillance cameras and pretending that the safety reduction is worth the invasion of your privacy.
Anybody can hack a camera, no one can hack an already built road. You're pretending like these cameras aren't easy as fuck to access.
You can build infrastructure that encourages reasonable people to drive slower (an example I'm thinking of - you can remove priority rules at a junction and force drivers to negotiate it on a more ad hoc basis, which requires a lower speed to see what everyone is doing). You can't build infrastructure which does this for everyone. Joe Twatface will just speed through that junction and let everyone else slam their brakes on.
A lot of features that discourage dangerous driving also prevent emergency vehicles from going at high speed.
On faster roads, these traffic-calming measures are generally undesirable also.
So: the methods are limited and have disadvantages. Traffic cameras can fill in the gaps.
If your traffic cameras are accessible to private companies who can misuse that data, that's a problem that needs to be addressed in legislation. If your traffic cameras are accessible to police who are fundamentally compromised as part of a proto-fascist state apparatus, it'd be good to link your protests against cameras (which exist all around the world) to their use by proto-fascists (which haven't co-opted the government all around the world, yet). And there are probably more effective ways of disrupting them.
As I already stated, doing that is not quick, easy, or cheap. Mounting a camera to a pole is much more cost effective, and quick to set up in the short term, even if it's not the ideal long-term solution.
They've been proven to reduce speed, injuries, and deaths, and there's vanishingly few cases in which regular, non-"smart" traffic cameras operating under the technological standards I mentioned have ever been utilized for any form of surveillance that produced a measurable harm for any individual, that I could find. That is why I advocate for those, not for "smart" ones like Flock's.
I don't think it should be a permanent solution, but I'd rather have speed cameras now, with road improvements later, over zero measures to prevent speeding now, with the hope that traffic calming infrastructure will be feasible and actually get done later down the line. Infrastructure isn't free, and cameras aren't either, but cameras are a hell of a lot cheaper.
A camera is a camera, and there are no lightpole cameras that are SD Card read only with no access to the internet.
You know what that means right? That anybody can access them if they're smart enough? You keep reiterating the same thing while fundamentally not understanding, or choosing not to care that a camera is a camera. Don't give up your privacy just because it's the cheaper option.
You clearly are fine being surveiled though so this conversation is pointless.
Not all cameras have security vulnerabilities. Assuming it's a matter of "smarts" is ridiculous. Plain old traffic cameras that solely detect speeding, especially those installed without additional "smart" features like Flock's, rarely have breaches, because they are by their very nature quite simple systems.
I'm not saying it's impossible, or that cases don't exist, but I've seen far more harm come from actual, preventable traffic deaths than I've seen from hacked speeding cameras. I've seen zero instances of that being used to cause harm, thus far.
I am not. That is why I am clearly advocating solely for systems with a design that reduces the chances of remote access, can't engage in mass surveillance, and only send data on those actively speeding, while never transmitting anything about literally everybody else. Have you even read my comments?
You clearly don't get my points, I'm sorry if I'm somehow not explaining them clearly enough, but fine, I'm done. You win, or whatever. Good job.
Lets just skip the middle and put a chip in your brain. Just a nice well behaved housecat.
The ones around me have a flash that goes off when it's dark out and someone runs the traffic light.
If they can only get a clear picture with a flash, it's pretty obvious they're not continuously scanning cars, at least at night.
Exactly.
There are a LOT of other cameras placed everywhere that collect your data, being mad at the objects that also try to get drivers to behave isn't the best use of our desire to rebel against authority. Maybe let's attack the corporations and not the infrastructure hardware.
Fine by me. Cars suck. I have no sympathy at all for people who drive.
Yes, cars obviously suck. But If you don't care about privacy for everyone, you don't care about privacy and are therefore compliant in a surveillance state
No, I care about privacy for myself and others by extension in those areas where it affects me. For instance I also want the government to monitor all known fascists. I don't support privacy for the enemies of democracy.
Nah I think you are just selfish, also you definitely don't care about privacy
This is a good chance to self reflect.
EVERYONE deserves privacy. Even your enemies.
If one group of people can be labelled fascists and are therefore no longer entitled to privacy (from your example), what is stopping someone from labelling you a fascist and ending your right to privacy?
I'll leave you with this poem, First They Came by Pastor Martin Niemöller: First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
My house is burning! Send the fire horse post haste!