this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
894 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

86469 readers
3278 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
894
Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket (www.gadgetreview.com)
submitted 1 week ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
251 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t you just need a police officer to go to court and say they are accusing you based on said evidence and then you still face the accuser

The huge invasions of privacy seem like a much bigger issue but I am also not a legal expert

[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The police officer didn't witness the crime. They're making that Judgement based on evidence provided by a third party.

If my house were broken into, and I managed to capture video of the incident, I can't just hand that to the police and call it a day. The accused has a constitutionally protected right to face me in court, not just the video or the officer I gave the video to, so that their defense can interrogate it fully. What if there is additional context that undermines the narrative presented by this single piece of evidence? If I know the accused and had a reason to see them convicted (such as getting a kickback from any fine they pay), now my clear evidence becomes a little more suspect. Now there's a very clear motive for me to skew, misinterpret, or completely fabricate the video.

That's what OP is referring to. If a company is going to install cameras and claim their cameras caught me doing something I shouldn't have, I have a right to ask that company for more details regarding their claim. Ideally in a public court, with a representative of the company under oath.

[–] aquovie@lemmy.cafe 5 points 6 days ago

Or more concisely: the government should never contract out law enforcement to private companies.