@spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works
Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket
2026-07-11 21:18 UTC
Replies (11)
-
@AlecSadler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-07-12 04:25
I have my windows illegally tinted (including windshield) all around so…hopefully this helps. Also fuck flock.
-
@pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2026-07-11 22:46
I don’t know what town it is exactly (Kirkland or Kenmore, WA), and they had a speed limit posted as 30mph., but gave my friend a ticket for going over 28 in a 25 zone. They grayed out the speed limit in the photo they sent that was approved by a cop. My friend would’ve had to go and get a picture of the sign to prove what assholes they were. I remember the sign and know for a fact that it said 30. Not enough to fight it, but enough to stay the fuck away from that town.
-
@Formfiller@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 05:20
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-
@fubarx@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 05:22
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 car 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! 🎉
-
@BCsven@lemmy.ca 2026-07-12 05:26
That’s the law here. Phone has to be securely stowed. Driving with it on your lap gets you a distracted driving ticket. Even if you weren’t planning on looking at it. A sudden traffic move means its falling on the floor and driver is going to try to reach for it.
-
@bridgeburner@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 06:39
It’s prolly because of those dumb fckn NPC-like pos people that the EU got this stupid rule that all new cars must have a camera system that monitors your face all the time. Another BS reason that makes cars increasingly more expensive.
-
@douglasg14b@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 07:30
Can we ban accounts that post AI slop descriptions and comments? Um here to talk to and see what humans post, not bots
-
@Sunflier@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 13:07
Article: Georgia law (OCGA 17-4-23) generally requires a traffic offense occur in the presence of an officer for a citation to be valid — raising direct legal questions about mail-in AI camera tickets. Washington State caps automated camera fines at $145 under RCW 46.63.220 — far below what you might be paying too much when the viral ticket hits $1,251. Five Albany, Georgia officers were criminally charged for misusing Flock plate-reader data for personal reasons, according to USA Today.
-
@Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 23:08
Traffic cams violate our constitutional right to face our accuser in court.
-
@uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-07-11 23:26
I remember the NSA massive surveillance machine during the George W. Bush administration and Obama administration that tracked phone metadata and internet traffic that left or entered the US (which was used to justify a lot of surveillance of US citizens). Even after the Snowden disclosures of 2013 we were promised that the system was only meant to track foreign terrorists. Then we learned that DEA had full access to it, and that NSA was sending hints to law enforcement about large amounts of cash in transit so it could be intercepted for purposes of asset forfeiture, what is nothing short of robbery of civilians by law enforcement officers. This is an example of mission creep, in this case how it affects the surveillance state. Once we allow a method or technology to be used for major crime (like terrorism), it will eventually be used even for minor crime (like drug possession or distracted driving). It’s very common for courts to forgive a violation of fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search when the violation presents evidence for a major crime, but then that case will be used as precedent when the same violation occurs and discovers a minor infraction. This is how, during the aughts and 2010s, the Fourth Amendment was gutted by a long run of carve-outs. Now, a police officer or state agent can violate your privacy without a warrant via a whole range of exceptions: ~ If the crime they discover is significant (SCOTUS suggested controlled substance possession as an example) ~ Using specialized technology, say long-range multi-spectrum cameras, or using a drone. ~ If probable cause can be established. A favorite is a detection dog that signals on anything and has a 90%+ false positive rate.¹ (This is a particular beef of mine, since fake detection dogs are now more common than actual detection dogs, and dogs are losing their presumption of regularity as a result.) ~ If the police officer was acting in good faith, which is obtusely defined and is very hard to disprove. ~ If the suspect is non-white or otherwise suspicious due prejudice. Really, in a lot of counties, law enforcement are allowed to operate on hunches, or have a suspicious activity parameter list that is so encompassing (and often contradictory) that it’s impossible to not be suspicious. If you want to know how we got here these were already problems during the Obama administration when we had allegedly reasonable people in elected offices. And while they discussed the risk of too much power falling into the wrong hands, they felt compelled to keep it. Whether the One Ring, or the Ring of Gyges, power without consequence is too seductive. ¹ A similar issue is the $2 roadside drug test which reacts to a lot of substances that aren’t controlled, such as glazed sugar off a donut. These were originally supposed to be then verified later in a lab, but instead were used to establish probable cause, and eventually were used as evidence in court.
-
@kepix@lemmy.world 2026-07-13 06:32
im glad she was fined, but i hope there is someone auditing the fines, and checks the pictures