Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 30 2018, @09:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-see-what-you-did-there.-signed-Big-Brother dept.

China has been using biometric technologies for a while to scan the public. Now they are being used to identify jaywalkers and send them warning via SMS, along with a fine.

China plans to roll out a national social credit system by 2020, which will keep a record of citizens' violation of laws and directly affect their ability to do things like get a loan or get hired for a job. According to the South China Morning Post, devices like the jaywalking facial recognition system will be part of this network to keep track of the number of jaywalking violations and change a person's social credit score accordingly.

Major cities have already deployed similar facial recognition activities to monitor traffic behavior and track drivers.

From Motherboard : China Is Using Facial Recognition Technology to Send Jaywalkers Fines Through Text Messages.
See also South China Morning Post : Jaywalkers under surveillance in Shenzhen soon to be punished via text messages.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @10:04AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @10:04AM (#660325)

    In realistic countries people understand that it doesn't matter if you think you are right. You jump in front of 2Mg of moving metal (well plastic nowdays) and you are the one getting hurt and injured, if not dead. The car does not feel pain and it can be scrapped. You are the one not walking for anymore. You are the one that could've prevented the incident. You are the one that ruined 2 or more lives just for being "right".

    Good luck with your pursue of the Darwin award.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Friday March 30 2018, @10:39AM (2 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 30 2018, @10:39AM (#660330) Journal

    I really don't need a law to prevent me from walking out in front of a motor vehicle. I can figure that out all on my own thank you very much.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @11:00AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @11:00AM (#660331)

      Well congratulations then, you could've fooled me with your original comment.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @07:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 01 2018, @07:49PM (#661215)

        That wouldn't be difficult.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday March 30 2018, @12:31PM (2 children)

    by Nuke (3162) on Friday March 30 2018, @12:31PM (#660345)

    Jaywalking is not "jumping in front of a car". I understand that in the USA it is crossing a road with pedestrian signals when "Walk" is not displayed.

    I am in the UK, and in places there are red and green pedestrian signals, but until I become old and decrepit I usually feel safer making my own decision when to cross. I'd rather cross when there is a gap in the traffic and the pedestrian light is red, than when it is green for me but I'm expected to walk across in front of a row of stopped cars all straining on their brakes to take off like rockets, or who are still approaching at speed anticipating that the lights will go green for them before they get there.

    In other words, I'd rather rely on my own capabilities than on other people's capabilities.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @02:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @02:32PM (#660377)

      > I'd rather rely on my own capabilities than on other people's capabilities.

      In a similar vein, I always figured that I was smarter than walk/don't walk traffic signals. Even if these are replaced with AI controls, I'm guessing that I'm still going to be smarter!

      And at least once I did the same thing with a traffic light while driving -- I was getting back to a motel in the middle of the night and refused to wait for a long signal to get into the motel parking lot. The area was lit and sight lines were a good 1/4 mile (300 m) in all directions, so I ran the red light for the week that I was there. Amazing, eh? Not a scratch on the rental car and no traffic tickets either. /s

    • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday March 30 2018, @07:57PM

      by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Friday March 30 2018, @07:57PM (#660507) Journal

      Jaywalking is defined as walking against a signal or crossing a street where it is posted prohibited, or where there is a physical obstacle such as a center divider. Most states assume a crosswalk is in existence any other place and pedestrians/cyclists generally have the right of way, but as pointed out here, be legally correct is trumped by being dead or severely physically damaged.

      --
      For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 30 2018, @01:33PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 30 2018, @01:33PM (#660357) Journal

    In realistic countries people understand that it doesn't matter if you think you are right. You jump in front of 2Mg of moving metal (well plastic nowdays) and you are the one getting hurt and injured,

    You clearly have unrealistically high expectations of people's intelligence.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday March 30 2018, @03:05PM (2 children)

    by theluggage (1797) on Friday March 30 2018, @03:05PM (#660392)

    In realistic countries, people understand that two wrongs don't make a right, and that both parties in an accident can be partially responsible...

    However, that is very bad news for lawyers on both sides who make far more money when one party takes all the liability, so realism is a rather endangered animal...

    Really, the questions of whether a pedestrian was jaywalking and whether a driver was negligent are completely independent and depend on the exact details of the incident. If your honest objective is to prevent accidents, then the best results are obtained if pedestrians are deterred from "jaywalking" and drivers are motivated to drive defensively. If, however, your motivation is to see how much money can be made in the aftermath of accidents...

    • (Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday March 30 2018, @08:01PM (1 child)

      by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Friday March 30 2018, @08:01PM (#660508) Journal

      I would think the lawyers made more money when there was no clear at fault perpetrator, and the case had to be litigated. Don't they get paid by the hour ?

      --
      For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:06PM

        by theluggage (1797) on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:06PM (#660808)

        I would think the lawyers made more money when there was no clear at fault perpetrator, and the case had to be litigated.

        ...but then they might lose and can only charge what the client is willing to pay (and have to compete with other lawyers for the business). If there's clear fault, they can do it on "no win, no fee", probably get the defendant to settle by writing a couple of letters, and the defendant pays damages which include whatever fees the lawyer thinks they deserve (including any losses from "lost" cases)...

        Get rear-ended by an insured driver and see how many lawyers cold-call you. Your insurance company will actually pimp out your details to personal injury lawyers and overpriced replacement car hire companies (the other party's insurance pays - there's no way any sane person would voluntarily pay their rates). I actually had one of these cowboy outfits phone up the garage that was repairing my car and try to cancel the (crap, but adequate, cheap and convenient located at the exact place where I needed to drop off and collect my car) courtesy car they'd offered. Nope, an at-fault accident triggers a feeding frenzy in the shark tank.

        Now rear-end someone yourself and enjoy the silence (and wait for the gold-plated bill for valeting the victim's car).

        One might think that its in the interest of insurance companies to keep awards down, too... But why? They're not paying - their other policyholders and underwriters are (and that risk has probably been 'commoditised' and sold on - you're rarely dealing with the actual underwriters), and if liability settlements start looking affordable, well, the advice goes: "never pay to insure what you can afford to replace" - where would the insurance industry be if people weren't scared of being hit by 6-7 figure liabilities? Any good casino wants a steady stream of winners to bring in the punters - as long as it's predictable and they can adjust their rake-off to cover it.