Smile - your car's on camera

[henni]

Story here

[MikeT]

Technology has been in use for over five years here in the states and over twelve years in the UK. OLd hat stuff, but a predictor of things to come.

[csimo]

I saw one of those cars at WalMart a couple of weeks ago. He was just running up and down the aisles of cars.

[groupset]

I welcome this technology; wish we had it long ago.

[schwejo]

Originally Posted by csimo

I saw one of those cars at WalMart a couple of weeks ago. He was just running up and down the aisles of cars.

Tongue in cheek... is that profiling?

I know Westinghouse was working on this in the late 80's when some of the engineers working on it did a dog and pony at a company meeting. I'm not opposed to the technology. I do feel our liberties are disapearing at an alarming rate, but i'm OK with this particular technology.

[Chip Moody]

At least one cruiser in my town is outfitted with that package - a slightly different model, I suspect - since it has three cameras instead of two.

I embrace it - even moreso after reading that article. Lets John Law do his job more efficiently, and more proactively without requiring additional human effort.

I will be interested in hearing any stories in the future about the system being abused, though...

And hey - think about it - if it isn't in use already, facial recognition similar to this "plate recognition" can't be far behind. Every time I walk down the steps into NYC Penn Station and see the security cameras aimed at the staircase, I actually *hope* that some kind of system is comparing people's faces to a "hot list"...

- Chip

[crimsonaudio]

And again Orwell chuckles from beyond...

[groupset]

I wish they'd link those camera systems to the insurance status on the plates they're scanning - when it captured one with no valid insurance in effect, that would give the officer probable cause to stop them and issue a citation (or, in some states, seize the vehicle and get it off the public roads). I've been hit twice by uninsured motorists; they shouldn't be tolerated on public roads with no insurance (or no valid DL, for that matter).

[1154]

A few things:

We get ALOT of false positives from this device. Overall, it can be a good law enforcement tool, though. For example, it's a great tool for finding stolen vehicles. But, again, many false positives in the ones I used in the past. Maybe they've worked out the bugs in the newer ones. Also, it's not an easy tool for "rogue" cops to abuse, but I respect people's fears/opinions when it comes to technology encroaching on our civil liberties.

Crimsonaudio, "Orwell was an optimist." I think current technology has far surpassed Orwell's imagination.

Groupset, there's a big difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion (RS)." What a cop can do changes alot between these two phrases. And not every jurisdiction allows cops to conduct a traffic stop if all they've got on the vehicle is RS to believe it does not have insurance. Uninsured motorists suck. Sorry you've been hit twice by them.

[groupset]

Originally Posted by 1154

Groupset, there's a big difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion (RS)." What a cop can do changes alot between these two phrases. And not every jurisdiction allows cops to conduct a traffic stop if all they've got on the vehicle is RS to believe it does not have insurance.

Yes; what I should have expressed was my desire that Oklahoma make driving with no insurance/vaild DL a primary reason for a vehicle stop - as they did with seat belts some years ago. Then, if the camera scanning technology could be linked with the state's vehicle tag database which already contains up-to-date insurance status associated with each tag, those vehicles without insurance in effect could be readily identified and removed from the roads - as they should be.