SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
UK launches national dashcam database for snitching on bad drivers (archive)
Drivers in England and Wales now have a direct line to police for ratting on their fellow motorists, thanks to a new national dash cam database.
The National Dash Cam Safety Portal, run by UK dashcam manufacturer Nextbase, lets drivers upload footage from their dashcam to a single database and send it directly to police, the BBC reports.
Drivers can choose their region of England or Wales and send footage of accidents or illegal behaviour on the road directly to local police, as well as sending a witness statement that can then be used in court.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Launches National Dashcam Database for Snitching on Bad Drivers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 72 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Tuesday July 10 2018, @06:01PM (7 children)
> Once you outsource the policework to private enterprise
Regular citizens are collectively a private enterprise now? Is allowing the public to report crimes considered outsourcing to private enterprise now?
> the mere potential for abuse without accountability for the reporter
Since this is for reporting illegal behavior, abuse could be considered perjury, especially if the reporter includes a witness statement, or if a witness statement were made mandatory. I don't see how there's no accountability.
> without accountability for ... police
It sounds like the police will still get the final say in pursuing cases of illegal behavior brought to them by the public. I don't see how this database specifically changes the police's accountability, for better or worse.
> And I'm not even talking about privacy...
You don't have privacy on public roads, from being either filmed or reported for illegal behavior, and/or especially for illegal behavior while performing a licensed activity like driving.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Tuesday July 10 2018, @06:42PM
Just wait when automotive-Alexa/Siri and your smart car will all start to snitch too at the whim of whoever has defined today's standards for detecting "bad driving".
We all know that context never ever can be a reason to do something, now, do we (excuse me, but not quite, for the sarcastic intonation)?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @06:59PM (5 children)
Under current law, no. But you should. One should have privacy from mass surveillance, which is 100% different from someone spotting you. Why? Because someone seeing you doesn't instantly and accurately record the license plate number. Someone seeing you doesn't then report the license plate number to a central authority. Because of this, the potential for abuse of a mass surveillance system is much greater than someone spotting you in a public place. I'm so tired of so called 'techies' spewing nonsense like this, when they should know better. Are you next going to support universal facial recognition because 'there's no privacy in public places'? I mean, why not? Then you'd have the authoritarian hellhole you so dream of.
That's the argument for the NSA's mass surveillance. Oh, they only go after bad guys. Except, it's a total lie, and it will be here, too. Any system of surveillance can be extended beyond its original parameters.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a society where my every move is recorded and technology constantly snitches on me. Sadly, people like yourself seem determined to bring such a society about under the guise of 'safety'. As if it would stop there, or as if it would even be okay even if it did stop there.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 11 2018, @12:40AM
Ill tell you what some jackass on the site said to me, "there is no expectation of privacy in public, thats why its called public."
No hope till jackasses are able to see outside their little box.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 11 2018, @01:54AM (2 children)
Simple solution, never go in public without wearing your camouflage burkha.
Unless you're in France, of course, where that would be illegal.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 12 2018, @06:20PM (1 child)
Obscuring your face in public is illegal too according to mask laws. That is why hoodies/hats and large sunglasses have always been so popular. Covering your mouth is technically illegal, although rarely you see people (especially Japanese, rarely other Asian born) who will wear masks due to cold/flu/respiratory infections. But technically they could be demanded to show their face at any time, and wearing them makes them stand out. Short of a major cultural shift towards obscured faces being legal and socially acceptable it won't happen in the US at least, which is why most Muslims you see here may wear a head covering but not a face covering.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 12 2018, @06:47PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday July 12 2018, @08:43AM
Thank you for putting words in my mouth, I appreciate being framed as a supporter of a totalitarian government.
The beautiful thing about knowledge is that, it's difficult for government to stop citizens from obtaining it, and it's difficult for citizens to stop government from obtaining it (although it's easy to distract individuals from desiring to obtain it, with bread and circuses). Once facial recognition technology exists, it's going to be used and abused. While shouting "I should have privacy" feels good, it will do fuck all to prevent this dystopia you fear. You're going to have to come up with a better idea than just repeating principles. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.
Another thing:
Any safety you feel from having "privacy" in the absence of mass surveillance is purely psychological. Imagine a world where mass surveillance doesn't exist, but like our world, you can be freely tailed in public by government agents. You have to act as if your every action in public were monitored anyway, regardless of the presence or absence of mass surveillance. Any wrongthink could still land you in Room 101. You might argue that the chance is much lower, but you don't actually know that. You're still gambling whether you get lucky or unlucky with who spots you/which algorithm marks you.
Given the choice between mass surveillance or no in public, of course I would choose the latter. However, regardless of the situation, I always act as if I have no privacy in public. The presence of mass surveillance would not change how I act in public, because I already act as if I am always being observed. If you're inclined to act as if you did have privacy in public if mass surveillance were absent, I don't know what to tell you, but there are a lot of politicians, husbands, etc. who have first hand experience of what happens when you assume you have privacy in public.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!