this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
554 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

86238 readers
4239 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
 

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
[–] Soulphite@reddthat.com 109 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Unconstitutional. Get that stupid ass shit dismissed in court.

[–] just2look@lemmy.zip 83 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Get it dismissed, and then sue the department that sent the fine.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 14 hours ago

Plenty of lawyers that work on contingencies if they think you have a worthy case.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 21 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Might have more luck suing the company running the camera software which flagged it.

[–] just2look@lemmy.zip 24 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 20 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

YOU get a lawsuit! And YOU get a lawsuit!

EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS STUPIDITY GETS A LAWSUIT!!!

Too bad they'll all be thrown out of court after the company pays off the judge.....Ya know, it used to be when I'd say things like that, which I knew were always true, that people would say I'm crazy. That businesses can't just BUY their way out of a lawsuit.

And now, the corruption is just out there. Everyone can see it now. Which kind of validates me, but also it means that things have gotten so much worse though out there. Now they feel no fear in basically telling the public "We run this shit, not you."

Now for the next thing people will think I'm crazy for. Once they have it well established that they have bought and own the government, they'll begin taking things away. I'm not talking about healthcare, or important things. That's already started. They're in the process right now of gutting programs like SNAP, and Medicaid. They began that about a year ago.

What I'm talking about is, right now you have no reason to believe that you can't go down to your local ice cream parlor and get an ice cream cone. Nothing wrong with that. No reason to believe you'll be denied. Give it time. There will come a day where you go to get ice cream, and they'll tell you no. You're not part of the in group. You're not allowed to have ice cream.

And I'm not saying this about just ice cream. That's just one example of something that is an affordable luxury, that has zero importance in life but it makes you feel good. It brings you joy.

Those are the types of things you'll start being denied as they take more and more for themselves. They'll want movie theaters to no longer allow the common man. They'll want public pools closed, and renovated into private pools with private entry. They'll want everything for them, and for you to beg to get common luxuries.

For them, it's not about having vs not having. It's about power. The ability to lick an ice cream cone, as they watch you go without, and laugh. They want the status of being able to tell you what to do. They want the world for themselves. That's where this whole epstein's island comes from. Some of them might actually be attracted to young kids, but really the thrill for them is to be able to take your sons and daughters dignity. They want what society says they can't have, and is wrong for anyone to have. They want that. They want the taboo. They want the power to say they can have it anytime they want. Regardless of how wrong it is. To them it's a show of power, and that's all they've ever cared about.

Call me crazy, but in 20 years, when there's an entire generation who's never tasted ice cream in their lives, maybe you'll remember this post. Probably not, but I will. Just like if I knew where my 1st grade teacher, Mrs Huey was, I'd go tell her the conversation we had 30+ years ago. The one in which she claimed that I'd grow up, and stop playing video games. I told her that on my death bed, I'd be playing video games no matter how old I got. I'm 42 now, and I'd ask her "At what point am I going to grow out of video games? When does the growing up happen? I'm older today, than you were the day you said that." And she, in turn, I assume would tell me it's not important, and that it was 30 years ago. Which is frustrating because 30 years ago she wouldn't believe me, and now, she won't care. Anything to avoid saying you were wrong I suppose. Which is weird to me. I have no issue when I'm wrong. Happens quite a bit. When I was 8, I thought I'd grow up to be one of the ninja turtles. Which, just conceptually makes no sense. The turtles became the turtles because they were already regular turtles, and then mutated when they got covered in toxic waste. If anything, I'd just be a really big mutated human. Think about it. The turtles were little regular pet store turtles. Maybe 7 inches tall if held upright. Then they get splashed with ooze, and they're like 7 feet tall. So as a kid, I was probably 4 feet tall......so I'd be like 30 feet tall I guess? I mean, that would still be cool, but also, we're ignoring the medical problems of being mutated. I'd probably get cancer again.

What was I talking about again?

[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 hours ago

I read this entire comment and I don't regret it.

[–] taxon@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

I have no idea, but username checks out

[–] Philote@lemmy.ml 23 points 14 hours ago

Yes, but the process is also a punishment.

[–] hogmomma@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

What's unconstitutional about it? Genuinely asking.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 30 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

The Constitution guarantees the right to confront your accuser in court, which you can't do with an automated camera. It used to be a guaranteed win if you showed up at all because the camera itself couldn't hire a lawyer and present an argument.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 2 points 5 hours ago

This seems trivially defeatable by having an officer use the camera footage as evidence when they issue a fine. Then there's an accuser to be confronted in court - the officer

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 3 points 6 hours ago

That's an insane interpretation of the law. I don't know or even care what prior jurisprudence says on the matter, it's fucking dumb if it's been interpreted that way.

If the camera took the photo and automatically issued the fine, then sure, I agree. But the camera should be taking the photo and passing it to a human to decide if a fine is warranted or not. And in that case, the human (or more to the point, the organisation the human works for) is the accuser. And the fine should stand, unless a defence explaining how the photo misrepresented the situation can be successfully mounted (similar to how a defence could be mounted explaining that the speed camera was incorrectly calibrated).

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 20 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't have to. They send a representative from the camera company whose job it is to show up in court and rationalize their bullshit at the judge. I know this because I actually had to go through this process once, many years ago, to fight a clearly fraudulent ticket from one of these damn fool things in our local downtown.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 1 points 6 hours ago

Do you happen to live in the area the company is headquartered? Because I can't imagine them flying a representative out for every ticket being contested.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Not sure why you're being downvoted.

It's the sixth amendent.

For of such a short document it is ridiculous for any American not to know their rights. Unfortunately the internet has been taken over by the ignorant.

[–] TheRedSpade@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

I mean, we should certainly take the time to learn our rights, but I wouldn't say that it's ridiculous to not remember everything contained in 40+ pages.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 14 hours ago

When traffic cameras are found to be unconstitutional it’s generally under the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures, requires probable cause for a search warrant). I don’t know if that’s how this case would shake out, but a ticket issued by a robot for having a phone in your lap face down is dumb as hell even if it’s not unconstitutional.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 points 5 hours ago

That surely fails the Katz test