Let's be sure to name and shame, for anyone who missed it: Georgia and Florida.

Company is - you guessed it - ~~Flock.~~ (Mention of Flock in the article has been removed with a correction.)

Unconstitutional. Get that stupid ass shit dismissed in court.

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.

Since the article appears to be mostly a weird collection of badly referenced random cases, let me give you the primary source on the case in the headline:

https://www.tiktok.com/@kristakampz/video/7640403411845877012

Edit and also to save you having to go to tiktok, here's a frame extracted from the video:

Note, this was in Alexandra Headland in Queensland in Australia. So no idea why the article cites Georgia law....

Also this is relevant: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/mobile-phones

Illegal mobile phone use while driving includes:

• holding it in your hand
• resting on any part of your body (eg. your lap or shoulder)

If you hold your phone or have it on your body, you will be fined even if you’re not operating the phone, or it’s turned off.

obviously LLM-generated article from an odd outlet that publishes five articles every hour

the news is real because it just regurgitates 404media

An example of what people in positions of authority think is perfectly acceptable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District

School authorities surreptitiously and remotely activated webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home. After the suit was brought, the school district, of which the two high schools are part, revealed that it had secretly taken more than 66,000 images.

A lawsuit wasn't enough, the administrators should be branded as sex offenders and the parents should have taken them out behind the school and beat the crap out of them.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Remember kids, blackout or reflective tint and anti alpr film for ya plates are your friends.

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.

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! 🎉

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.

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.

They should take away her drivers license. A fine is not enough for so blatantly endangering everyone....

This is what I would say if she had actually looked down and not paid attention to traffic.

But this? This is just abusive use of technology

Would be funny if it was a more modern vehicle, with a massive ipad that's nearly bolted to your forehead and has displays on the back of every headrest.

Why would the phone be on your lap if you're not using it?

This is kinda justified.

Not allowed to keep her phone on her lap when driving. Let's be honest, she used it, and put it down quickly

Here in Australia a cop busted me using my phone once (not defendable, but I was at a red light).

I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with mobile phone detection either still despite getting pulled over

If you don't want to follow the traffic laws don't drive or change country (but don't complain if you get hit by a oncoming car)

Loser. Pay up! Put your phone away.

Meanwhile in NYC they're only allowed to put traffic cameras in school zones, they're speed-based only, the fine is like $100, and drivers can rack up dozens of tickets without any consequence to the standing of their drivers license.

I dunno man, I feel like there's a happy medium in traffic enforcement automation between these two extremes? It's almost as if stuff like the Georgia example exists to provide ammunition to the opponents in NYC who successfully defanged traffic cameras up there. With a thin veneer over the top that this is about surveillance.

Flock cameras, AI surveillance, etc is bad. But the specific examples and criticisms being brought up, like this one, feel very disingenuous in the face of how many Americans die to distracted drivers every year. Like are we actually pushing back against AI state surveillance, or are we defending the "right" of motorists to be wildly dangerous to those around them?

Like I said on a similar thread - we already lost our feedom. They're just installing the shackles now.

For your safety.™