I’m interested in how strong your reaction is to those two examples. Could you explain why those are such terrible things?
For example i really believe that traffic enforcement cameras are state oppression. They create more human suffering then they prevent. it's just that people are used to it so they don't protest.
Taking the traffic enforcement then - we’re talking about a dangerous piece of machinery that you’re allowed to operate in a public place under certain conditions in order to reduce the risk to others. One of those conditions is speed. It seems blindingly obvious to me that if a society agrees those conditions it should also enforce them?
As a general rule these things start with sincere intentions but often devolve into cynical exploitation. So if you weigh the benefits of speed cameras against the suffering they cause i think you would find they aren't a good thing.
Getting to your original question i think many people don't trust that their face and fingerprint scans will be used in a way that would be in the publics interest. Its more likely that the authorities would find a way to use that data against you.
I'm really not sure where and how you draw the line but i do think we should err on the side of less surveillance. That's the predominant view on hn.
Only in the doge side of HN
> I'm honestly not sure what the balance is, but there is a point where one bad accident is worth less then many speeding tickets.
No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver.
> Only in the doge side of HN
That's hardly true. I'm pretty far from the doge end of the spectrum, but I want as little surveillance as possible (ideally: only via court order).
You need only read about what impact a simple census question about religious affiliation had in the 1930s/40s to realize that information about yourself can very quickly be used for very dark purposes.
We've already seen stories about red states using data from social media and phone apps to target women who may have gotten abortions.
I can think of plenty of not so great ways red light camera data can be (and probably already is being) used for things completely outside the scope of merely automating speeding and red light crossing tickets.
>No amount of speeding tickets is worth one kid killed by a drunk driver.
In an idealised plane of existence i agree with you, but real life is about finding the right balance.
Rather than rampant surveillance I would support confiscating the car and cancelling the license of reckless drivers on the second offense, and DUIs on the first offense.
This has been widely documented for red light cameras. Red light cameras are politically much easier because approximately nobody thinks blatantly running red light is ever acceptable (vs. speed limits which have a wide range of debate on what the correct number should be).
So, towns install red light cameras. And initially, it's good! Then when the town gets used to the revenue stream, they want more money. How to get more? They shorten the yellow light more and more and more so they can artificially increase the number of people "running the red light". What started as a good plan to punish people who blatantly run the light, becomes a gotcha trick programmed to maximize revenue at the cost of safety (rear end accidents increase substantially after people become trained to panic brake at yellow lights due to the excessively short time).
I don't understand how people can come to any conclusion other than blaming the following driver for not maintaining a safe distance. It's generally impossible to predict when the driver in front may have to perform an emergency stop (e.g. kid running into the road) and you have to leave enough room when following so that you don't crash into them if they need to stop. Surely this is just a basic driving skill?
What, like actually enforcing laws? I live in the US and I would love a way to rein in traffic. Enforcing traffic laws is literally the best thing the police do.
US roads are built to encourage speeding.