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 โ€” 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
[โ€“] fubarx@lemmy.world 18 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (4 children)

Hey, they could connect the car 'driver attention camera' thing, the OBD car speed stuff, and the in-car GPS to the municipality, the insurance company, and your credit card or bank account.

That way, the minute you look away, go a little over the speed limit, or check your phone message, they just gouge some cash out of your bank account. After three of these, your insurance rate goes up. After the tenth time, your health insurance and employer will be notified.

Fun times! ๐ŸŽ‰

Edit: every damn step of this is now available via APIs or Agentic MCPs. There is zero technical barrier for this happening. Sleep tight y'all.

[โ€“] MML@sh.itjust.works 1 points 37 minutes ago

So glad that I choose to drive, I love having a depreciating asset that costs 25% of my income when it's running properly to drive nearly an hour to work every day (and almost get murdered several times).

[โ€“] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org -5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

You describe it as a nightmare, but on the other hand: People are operating multi-ton vehicles at high speeds in urban areas and are causing thousands of casualities doing that every year. A person operating a car should focus on the road and driving. If he/she is speeding, checking the phone, eating, smoking or fighting with their co-driver or kids, that's not safe and needs to be stopped.

[โ€“] jjlinux@lemmy.zip 1 points 27 minutes ago

Unhinged surveillance and loss of privacy are not the solution to this. They are not the solution to anything except monetizing all the users and controlling the population.

[โ€“] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago* (last edited 26 minutes ago)

My issue with it is the complete lack of transparency in the spyware. It would be better if we were actually told about the spyware and the data it sends is accessible to us. But right now we have no idea what they're sending, how any of it affects our insurance rates, and have no way to dispute anything resulting from it.

[โ€“] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

There is zero technical barrier for this happening.

I guess we'll have to make a disincentivization barrier instead.

[โ€“] Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

People that get caught driving drunk get an alcohol lock on their car, let's at the very least install a speed check (hard limiter or the automatic fine thing) in repeat offenders' cars

[โ€“] jjlinux@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 minutes ago

I can see that working. Only repeat offenders need to be surveilled, and only for the intended purpose. And only by the State institution tasked with monitoring it.

Now, how do they make that happen? Because the public institutions (police, DA, Motor vehicle, etc.) Don't develop software or hardware, they would contract with a tech company, or multiple tech companies. That means that having only the intended party monitor these would be impossible, due to the data and infrastructure being built and handled by private companies who's only purpose is revenue.

I guess this just doesn't work. Oh well, we tried.