A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.
Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.
Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.
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.)Flock is shit, but apparently not the one who did this. Ig they could be lying?
Flock Safety reached out to us to clarify that our information was wrong. Flock cameras were not involved with the woman driving with her phone story. Alexandra Parade, where the incident took place, is a well traveled coastal highway with systems operated by state revenue programs. We have corrected that and removed any mention of Flock being involved with that story.
When I first heard of the amputee story (a bodycam video/audio of the initial encounter) it sounded to me like this was good old-fashioned police work, followed up with a typical harassment citation to send the citizen they didn’t like’s attitude to court if they wanted a chance to prove that they weren’t holding a phone in their amputated hand.
I think people are rightfully referring to mass surveillance system cameras as Flock cameras.
Even if the company folds, the cameras will still be operated. It doesnt matter what the brand is that makes em.
It matters people know what they are.
Queensland, Australia.
Two states?
Washington is mentioned, but not with enough context to determine that Washington uses the cameras.
Which is weird, and other comments mention the whole article may be AI slop, rehashed from somewhere else. :(
deleted by creator
Unconstitutional. Get that stupid ass shit dismissed in court.
Get it dismissed, and then sue the department that sent the fine.
Good luck with that.
Plenty of lawyers that work on contingencies if they think you have a worthy case.
Might have more luck suing the company running the camera software which flagged it.
Fuck it, sue them too.
YOU get a lawsuit! And YOU get a lawsuit!
EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS STUPIDITY GETS A LAWSUIT!!!
Too bad they’ll all be thrown out of court after the company pays off the judge…Ya know, it used to be when I’d say things like that, which I knew were always true, that people would say I’m crazy. That businesses can’t just BUY their way out of a lawsuit.
And now, the corruption is just out there. Everyone can see it now. Which kind of validates me, but also it means that things have gotten so much worse though out there. Now they feel no fear in basically telling the public “We run this shit, not you.”
Now for the next thing people will think I’m crazy for. Once they have it well established that they have bought and own the government, they’ll begin taking things away. I’m not talking about healthcare, or important things. That’s already started. They’re in the process right now of gutting programs like SNAP, and Medicaid. They began that about a year ago.
What I’m talking about is, right now you have no reason to believe that you can’t go down to your local ice cream parlor and get an ice cream cone. Nothing wrong with that. No reason to believe you’ll be denied. Give it time. There will come a day where you go to get ice cream, and they’ll tell you no. You’re not part of the in group. You’re not allowed to have ice cream.
And I’m not saying this about just ice cream. That’s just one example of something that is an affordable luxury, that has zero importance in life but it makes you feel good. It brings you joy.
Those are the types of things you’ll start being denied as they take more and more for themselves. They’ll want movie theaters to no longer allow the common man. They’ll want public pools closed, and renovated into private pools with private entry. They’ll want everything for them, and for you to beg to get common luxuries.
For them, it’s not about having vs not having. It’s about power. The ability to lick an ice cream cone, as they watch you go without, and laugh. They want the status of being able to tell you what to do. They want the world for themselves. That’s where this whole epstein’s island comes from. Some of them might actually be attracted to young kids, but really the thrill for them is to be able to take your sons and daughters dignity. They want what society says they can’t have, and is wrong for anyone to have. They want that. They want the taboo. They want the power to say they can have it anytime they want. Regardless of how wrong it is. To them it’s a show of power, and that’s all they’ve ever cared about.
Call me crazy, but in 20 years, when there’s an entire generation who’s never tasted ice cream in their lives, maybe you’ll remember this post. Probably not, but I will. Just like if I knew where my 1st grade teacher, Mrs Huey was, I’d go tell her the conversation we had 30+ years ago. The one in which she claimed that I’d grow up, and stop playing video games. I told her that on my death bed, I’d be playing video games no matter how old I got. I’m 42 now, and I’d ask her “At what point am I going to grow out of video games? When does the growing up happen? I’m older today, than you were the day you said that.” And she, in turn, I assume would tell me it’s not important, and that it was 30 years ago. Which is frustrating because 30 years ago she wouldn’t believe me, and now, she won’t care. Anything to avoid saying you were wrong I suppose. Which is weird to me. I have no issue when I’m wrong. Happens quite a bit. When I was 8, I thought I’d grow up to be one of the ninja turtles. Which, just conceptually makes no sense. The turtles became the turtles because they were already regular turtles, and then mutated when they got covered in toxic waste. If anything, I’d just be a really big mutated human. Think about it. The turtles were little regular pet store turtles. Maybe 7 inches tall if held upright. Then they get splashed with ooze, and they’re like 7 feet tall. So as a kid, I was probably 4 feet tall…so I’d be like 30 feet tall I guess? I mean, that would still be cool, but also, we’re ignoring the medical problems of being mutated. I’d probably get cancer again.
What was I talking about again?
I read this entire comment and I don’t regret it.
I have no idea, but username checks out
Yes, but the process is also a punishment.
What’s unconstitutional about it? Genuinely asking.
The Constitution guarantees the right to confront your accuser in court, which you can’t do with an automated camera. It used to be a guaranteed win if you showed up at all because the camera itself couldn’t hire a lawyer and present an argument.
It doesn’t have to. They send a representative from the camera company whose job it is to show up in court and rationalize their bullshit at the judge. I know this because I actually had to go through this process once, many years ago, to fight a clearly fraudulent ticket from one of these damn fool things in our local downtown.
Do you happen to live in the area the company is headquartered? Because I can’t imagine them flying a representative out for every ticket being contested.
These guys know how it works. They don’t “fly” anyone anywhere. They have low paid lackeys available in any and all of the areas they operate whose job it is specifically to hang around in courthouses and defend their tickets. It’s not like they drop everything and bundle an executive on a plane to go to Podunk, Missouri or whatever to argue about a one-off ticket.
In my case this outfit only operates in our state, to my knowledge. They wouldn’t have to go far.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted.
It’s the sixth amendent.
For of such a short document it is ridiculous for any American not to know their rights. Unfortunately the internet has been taken over by the ignorant.
I mean, we should certainly take the time to learn our rights, but I wouldn’t say that it’s ridiculous to not remember everything contained in 40+ pages.
That’s an insane interpretation of the law. I don’t know or even care what prior jurisprudence says on the matter, it’s fucking dumb if it’s been interpreted that way.
If the camera took the photo and automatically issued the fine, then sure, I agree. But the camera should be taking the photo and passing it to a human to decide if a fine is warranted or not. And in that case, the human (or more to the point, the organisation the human works for) is the accuser. And the fine should stand, unless a defence explaining how the photo misrepresented the situation can be successfully mounted (similar to how a defence could be mounted explaining that the speed camera was incorrectly calibrated).
This seems trivially defeatable by having an officer use the camera footage as evidence when they issue a fine. Then there’s an accuser to be confronted in court - the officer
When traffic cameras are found to be unconstitutional it’s generally under the fourth amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures, requires probable cause for a search warrant). I don’t know if that’s how this case would shake out, but a ticket issued by a robot for having a phone in your lap face down is dumb as hell even if it’s not unconstitutional.
4th Amendment violation
That surely fails the Katz test
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.
This is wildly whack:
https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives
The system must do everything in its power to drive false convictions down to absolute zero.
Blackstone would agree with you.
Many, many people, in law enforcement and the judiciary would disagree…
…especially when it comes to minorities.
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.
Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap? That doesn’t make sense. That’s bizarre.
Edit:
Really? This is a hot take? WTF!
If you write enough laws in a manner that makes it easy to violate them accidentally, then anyone can be prosecuted at any time and civil liberties can be removed via technicalities.
deleted by creator
Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap?
Likely to make the law in any way practical to enforce. Many people will use their phone in the car by keeping it between their legs like a middle schooler hiding their phone use from their teacher. They can read messages or watch videos while keeping it out of their hands, but it’s still just as distracting.
You could just ban looking at a phone in your lap while driving, but then you have the nightmare of proving that someone who glanced down was actually looking at their phone, rather than just randomly glancing down for some other innocent reason. And they would have to glance down at their phone at the exact moment a camera or police officer saw them.
Phone use is actually very hard to enforce because of the nature of its use. People using their phone while driving don’t tend to continuously look at the phone the whole time they drive - they would be completely incapable of driving if they did so. Instead, they use it intermittently, such as while stopped at a traffic light or while cruising down the highway. That use is still enough to degrade their driving performance to the level of a drunk driver, but it’s not continuous. To make enforcement practical, you need to write the law so that it doesn’t require a lucky coincidence to enforce.
For an older comparable example, consider open container laws. You might reasonably ask, “wait, as long as I’m not drinking from it, why can’t I have an open beer in the car? Maybe I just want to take my half-finished beer home from the bar and finish it at home!” And while that would be a perfectly innocuous reason to have an open container of alcohol in the car, it would also make drunk driving laws much more difficult to enforce. You could only ticket someone for drinking in the car if they happen to take a sip right when you’re watching. Instead of trying to outlaw the infrequent action, you instead outlaw the necessary but continuous action. It’s not practical to only ban drinking in vehicles. Instead you ban having an open container, as “possessing an open container” is something a drunk driver will be doing for a protracted period of time.
It’s not a perfect approach to writing laws; you do end up criminalizing some innocuous behavior. But trade offs have to be made. Yes, it’s unfortunate that open container laws also make it so you can’t bring your half-finished drink home from the bar. And yes, it’s unfortunate that banning cell phone use while driving also requires banning just having a phone in your lap.
But if you’ve ever worked in a classroom, you’ll know that this is the only way to actually ban cell phone use while driving. Teachers learn very quickly they can’t just ban students from using their phones, they have to completely ban them from having them out at all. Relying on lucky coincidences to enforce laws is not a practical solution.
A law that specified you were actively using the phone would be hard to enforce. Simmiliar to how it is usually illegal to have open alcohol within reach of the driver. The officer doesn’t have to actually see you drinking it.
How would it be hard to enforce? You can see it next their head.
Ever since video playback is possible. You no longer need to put your phone on your head to use it.
These are cargo cult laws. They don’t understand what the original laws were about. They just know “use phone in car bad” but they don’t know why. Used to you had to hold the phone to your head and block half of your vision.
If you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor, then it could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.
Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a dangerous hazard waiting to happen.
I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the logic of this law and this was one of the things I considered they must be worried about. It’s not so much people using them, it’s just they don’t want them in the lap. Because Uber and Lyft drivers have to use them for work in the US. Here they have they often have a mount on the dash board to hold their phone and they’re constantly taking calls and checking maps.
As you say though it’s like a one in a million event freak accident if it flies off the lap and gets stuck under the pedal. It would be weird to pass a law for some off the wall scenario like that.
I know in Western Australia, where I live, it is illegal to have the phone resting on any part of your body.
https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/road-safety-commission/mobile-phones-and-distractions
I wonder where the line is drawn between on your lap vs in your pocket. By that I mean, what if it is in a clear pouch on a lanyard around your neck, or in a running-armband. In both those cases it could still be used by need not have been touched while the car is driving.
So no idea why the article cites Georgia law…
Because there was another case in Georgia in December that they were citing as well. In fact they cite several cases in different parts of the country. The article is making a case for a supreme court challenge to these Constitution violating cameras and fines. The Australian cases just a viral opener for the topic.
Can’t be that viral if the tiktok is already two months old. I think they are just too bad at journalism to check their sources.
Does a phone in the pocket count as resting on any part of the body?
AI …
that’s why it cites Georgia law.
obviously LLM-generated article from an odd outlet that publishes five articles every hour
the news is real because it just regurgitates 404media
Couldn’t find it on 404 (ironic) but it was on Yahoo news
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/flock-camera-captures-woman-driving-101504525.html
yahoo news is not a news source but a site that republishes articles from other websites. you can tell from the top here that this is the exactly same article from Gadget Review
apparently the 404media part is just a part of the article where it cites previous incidents. so then we don’t even have a source for the meat of the article save a random X thread.
Ah yeah even the author is the same
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.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Montgomery County District Attorney all initiated criminal investigations of the matter, which they combined and then closed because they did not find evidence “that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent”.
If I don’t have intent to commit a crime but I break the law, it’s not an excuse that a cop or judge will buy. Holy fuck.
I seem to recall something about a story where, like, a kids mom didnt know the camera was remotely turned on and walked through the room naked, after having just gotten out of the shower, and there was some kind of CPS investigation about it?
or is my brain mixing up several different school district voyeur stories together?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
The school took 66,000 pictures of students in their bedrooms. School administrators should be listed as sex offenders but that doesn’t happen in the U.S. Case in point - our child rapist in chief.
Nope, that happened. If the institution spying on you in your home sees you naked, in your own home where you foolishly expect privacy, you’re a criminal.
Why did they even have the ability to do that in the first place? Holy fuck dude
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
I think this is fair. It’s reasonable to require a stowed phone, and we don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving our cars. No essential liberty is being violated.
Spoken like a true fascist. Government mass surveillance and AI consolidation is tyranny.
Harsh
You don’t think an anarchist society would have any mechanism to stop people from driving dangerously?
Funny, isn’t liberty an inalienable right granted by The Creator?
Ben Franklin was an atheist
Are you sure? He definitely said and wrote things to the contrary, including the Declaration of Independence.
I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.
I have no dog in this race, being neither American nor religious, but it seems like an important historical detail.
I assume they were thinking of Jefferson, but he would have been more of an agnostic (maybe). He just thought the virgin birth was bullshit, Jesus was some guy, and the point was to believe in caring for others basically. Apparently he just took all the miracles out and said, people should treat people better.
Which honestly sounds like a much less toxic version of beliefs. (But I’m sure that’s been white washed or rose tinted or what not over the years)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I think we can agree he was a critic of organized religion, and that it’s pretty enlightened to not have the state impose religion on anyone.
That said I still think he (at least for a large chunk of his life) believed in the existence of a god, the god of Abraham/Christianity in particular.
Not every religious person feels the need to forcibly convert others.
Remember kids, blackout or reflective tint and anti alpr film for ya plates are your friends.
Or… you don’t need a plate on a bicycle.
Agreed, which I wish I could but this place is the antithesis of anything in proximity. Maybe e bike but it’d have to be stealth because they’ll stop you on that shit too.
Maybe don’t be a dick in traffic?
Doesn’t seem to matter. This lady got a massive ticket without any evidence of anybody being bothered by her
Got any recs for anti alpr film?
What about IR LED strips to flood the cameras with light?
Many youtubers have tried, It’s not reliable, doesn’t work in the day and newer cameras even in night vision are getting hard to swap.
The tint/reflective stuff has a decent chance of getting you an inspection ticket, most states don’t allow LP covers.
My best plan would be and LCD infused glass plate that you could blurr out with a button press like those electronic privacy windows. Thing is, even that’s illegal.
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.
Some towns literally just exist to extract money from nonlocals who don’t know to not go through there. There’s one near where I grew up that transitions from a 60 mph to a 30 mph zone at the bottom of a hill, so if you aren’t riding your brakes the whole way down you’re speeding. And of course the cops love to sit there and pop people with tickets for it.
Same sort of speed traps used to be along the only route to a casino I went to a few times. My first time driving to the casino, they were laying in wait. I got caught on the way back.
Pigs sure do love to jam people up. Bonus points if they ruin the life of a minority! There certainly are no such thing as quotas, right?
Emporia, Virginia is another notorious one, right on heavily traveled I-95 as well as US-58. Virginia has front license plates, so the cars that don’t have front plates definitely aren’t from Virginia and if there’s a group of cars all going the same speed it’s the easy way to pick out the non-local. Saw it happen when I was a passenger.
That happened to my dad too, he was going “one over the limit.” It’s infuriating because it’s fraud and stealing.
I think that lazy shitty cops do a lot to malign common sense safety engineering that most people would otherwise be totally on board for.
Ain’t that shit considered “entrapment”?
Entrapment has a very specific definition, and this ain’t it.
It might still be an illegal speed limit change, but that’s going to depend on an awful lot of details. It’s certainly bad design, but the locals probably like it for the money it brings in.
Entrapment is when a cop gets you to do something that breaks a law, and then catches you.
Old guy told me in addition to photos you should request all documentation regarding that specific sign and that stretch of road, such as the work order to have it installed. Public records laws vary lol
Wow, good to look into if ever defrauded like this!
Not enough to fight it
if that’s not worth fighting then nothing is. I’ve met High school kids that have fought tickets before. U.S. Traffic Courts are notoroious for being extraordinarily mundane
They would have fought it if you could fight it like a normal ticket, but you couldn’t. You could pay or write them a stern letter that would mean nothing. Seattle has those kinds of tickets too. This would have had to have been a trip to the AG or something. I don’t know how they would have fought it without a lawyer.
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.
People that get caught driving drunk get an alcohol lock on their car, let’s at the very least install a speed check (hard limiter or the automatic fine thing) in repeat offenders’ cars
I can see that working. Only repeat offenders need to be surveilled, and only for the intended purpose. And only by the State institution tasked with monitoring it.
Now, how do they make that happen? Because the public institutions (police, DA, Motor vehicle, etc.) Don’t develop software or hardware, they would contract with a tech company, or multiple tech companies. That means that having only the intended party monitor these would be impossible, due to the data and infrastructure being built and handled by private companies who’s only purpose is revenue.
I guess this just doesn’t work. Oh well, we tried.
Public institutions also have in-house software roles, and if those are insufficient they can have a tender to make the software that belongs to the public institution afterward (to then be hosted government managed infra). This happens all the time.
So its not right to dismiss this immediately.
You describe it as a nightmare, but on the other hand: People are operating multi-ton vehicles at high speeds in urban areas and are causing thousands of casualities doing that every year. A person operating a car should focus on the road and driving. If he/she is speeding, checking the phone, eating, smoking or fighting with their co-driver or kids, that’s not safe and needs to be stopped.
Unhinged surveillance and loss of privacy are not the solution to this. They are not the solution to anything except monetizing all the users and controlling the population.
My issue with it is the complete lack of transparency in the spyware. It would be better if we were actually told about the spyware and the data it sends is accessible to us. But right now we have no idea what they’re sending, how any of it affects our insurance rates, and have no way to dispute anything resulting from it.
Because it’s largely a boogie man OP invented, the network layer isn’t magic, if anything OP is suggesting was being done secretly (unlike say teenagers getting better insurance rates if they put a telemetry box in their car), it would be pretty easy to detect.
So glad that I choose to drive, I love having a depreciating asset that costs 25% of my income when it’s running properly to drive nearly an hour to work every day (and almost get murdered several times).
There is zero technical barrier for this happening.
I guess we’ll have to make a disincentivization barrier instead.
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.
This was in Australia though
Find a flock employee and place its favorite pet around its house.
This has nothing to do with Flock, these cameras catch people who are breaking a law and don’t store/index footage otherwise, Flock is purely survailance tech, even if you do nothing wrong the point of flock is to survail.
and don’t store/index footage otherwise
How do they manage that, with the current surveillance regime? Is all the image processing on device? What’s it sampling against? How does it send the tickets? One-way infrared flashes?
I could be wrong but pre-Flock and letting the tech-Bros actually build a survailance state, most traffic cameras were designed to only flash when they caught someone breaking the law and so only send data off the device when needed.
How do they manage that
For speed/red light cameras it’s trivial, for something like this it’s pretty easy to process on device to detect a phone in your hand/lap, but probably does need someone to check for false positives.
Is all the image processing on device?
It should be, this is simple to do on device (unless it’s outsourced to Palantir & frens)
How does it send the tickets
Obviously when it triggers it uploads data.
it uploads data
… So. To the internet?
simple to do on device
Image recognition is not computationally cheap. There are more and less expensive ways to do it, but the absolute floor of it turns your phone into a hot plate. So whatever’s in there would need to be at least a phone chip.
someone needs to check
So it is kept and stored.
pre all-this-shit
Red light/speed cams, triggered on motion sensor boolean when light red or radar speed reading>x.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, which is fine, but why are you speaking confidently and assuming such good will about proven constant brazen liars saying they’re not doing the shit they literally always do?
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about
Lmao.
You can literally detect phones with a raspberryPi the idea that you need to upload it to a server is ridiculous.
You can ‘detect phones’ via anything with WiFi. Are you trolling? Do you not understand the difference between image processing and simpler more computer readable signals?
You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. How are so many people so rabidly and confidently ignorant?
One I got a $125 ticket for driving 27 near a school on a Saturday in Washington, so no system is perfect…
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
I mean, it would also be insane to take someone’s license away for actually using their phone at this point too. Newer cars have actual touchscreen tablet interfaces that requires the driver to look away from the road; sometimes even to see basic information like their current speed. Plus, there’s all these dickbags on the road in pickups or other light trucks (with or without those iPad screens) that are purposefully designed primarily to exude masculinity, not be safe vehicles to drive.
At this point, I don’t know how we argue that the phone thing is dangerous without the allowance of all that other shit contradicting that reasoning. Even worse, the existence of these infotainment systems in the cars themselves has probably resulted in charges laid against poorer people who drive older vehicles disproportionately while Keith is on his way to work at the landlord factory and watching Madagascar 3 on his speedometer.
deleted by creator
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.
By the same logic if you’re transporting unopened liquor in a grocery bag on the seat next to you it’s “kinda justified” to be arrested for drinking while driving. After all why would it be in arm’s reach if you weren’t planning on drinking it?
Presumably the driver had previously used her phone, and the phone was in her lap. So the alcohol analogy would actually be re-sealed alcohol held by the driver or in a container around the driver’s seat. Which is illegal in most of the USA.
She probably used it earlier, but not necessarily. She might not have a good place to set her phone in her car.
She might have used it earlier, at a time where it was legal. For instance, setting navigation or music before driving. Or (depending on local laws) while stopped at a light.
Right, but if we’re making alcohol an analogy for phones then she wouldn’t be given such leeway by the law. Alcohol is just a bad analogy here.
Because the alcohol law is “open container”. There is no “phone in reach of driver” law. The analogous activity with alcohol would be active drinking.
So if the phone was on the seat she should get a ticket, if was on the console 2" to the right she should get a ticket, if it was in her pocket she should get a ticket? If it’s in a dash mount within reach she should get a ticket? If the phone’s in a sealed box like an unopened liquor bottle then she shouldn’t?
You see now why alcohol is not a great analogy.
I got a lot of down votes above for pointing out the discrepancy. I think people got ahead of their skis: I wasn’t trying to say she deserves DUI-level charges, I’m demonstrating that the analogy isn’t great.
Removed by mod
Not even a little justified. What are you on about?
Phone is on her lap specifically because she’s not using it.
I hate flock, I hate the surveillance state we’ve lived in for decades. But you don’t just drive with a phone in your lap. She may not have been using it when the camera caught her but we all know she was definitely fucking using it. You’re lying.
There’s a law against driving with your phone in your lap? That’s crazy.
Idiots downvoting you are the exact reason we end up with so many laws that seem ridiculous. You’re exactly right, why would it be in her lap if she hadn’t been using? Saying she’s innocent because it wasn’t actively in her hand, is like saying you’re just carrying a bloody knife, but they didn’t catch you stabbing the guy, so too bad.
In Australia, your phone must be stowed or in an approved cradle when driving, because, people would be using their phone and then drop it in their lap when caught and try to claim they were just carrying it there. Not that it got them out of the fine, it just saved time with idiots arguing.
Idk maybe she just left Dunkin and paid by scanning the app in the drive thru and now her cupholder is full and it’s the safest place to put down the phone.
I don’t know.
I do know what they say about assuming, though. And the state is assuming, and thus accusing, her of a dangerous activity on nothing but the thinnest of evidence.
An accusation that is based upon a presumption of guilt, which our system shouldn’t be based upon.
And so now this person has to choose between taking time off work, and possibly lawyering up, to fight this and maybe just pay a few hundred in court fees…or just pay it.
This is Vexatious litigation and an abuse of the judicial system on the part of the state.
The other day my car told me to pull over and take a nap because I was driving out of dense tree cover into a really bright street and my eyes were squinty.
This is like putting a camera right there in the sun and issuing DUIs because you look high.
My phone is in my lap while driving all the time because I take it out of my back pocket to not squish it when sitting down and I don’t have anywhere else to put it. Usually I remember to tuck it down beneath my legs, but sometimes I forget.
There’s a bunch of trays that can hold your phone all over, newer ones even make some dedicated ones that would wirelessly charge your phone. Put it there, your lap is not a stable surface, and sure will distract you when the sudden movement causes it to slide off.
Does holding the volume up button to switch songs count as using my phone?
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)
Yes she probably used it, that’s when she can be ticketed, she shouldn’t be fined on a presumption.
Edit: Reading the note the charge is using phone while driving, not carrying the phone in unsafe manner.
Also I despise people using their phone while driving, the point here is that they must charge people for a valid reason and with proof of the infraction.
Jesus. Who is actually up voting this?
The name of the charge in some countries is use of the phone when driving… and that includes carrying it on your lap. It’s possible despite the description it’s just the description they use
There’s a fucking photo of her with it on their lap. That’s proof
This is just some wanker playing victim. And, I guarantee they play victim constantly. Can we not act like babies about this and try to protect the weasels?
It’s 2026 and most people have Android Auto or car play at this time. It’s not like there is any excuse.
It’s fair for the one that turned out wrong, but in this case, seems it’s correct.
Also, it’s some shitty random website, so I guarantee the info is partially wrong too. There is already one correction that it wasn’t flock
If it was the police who pulled these people over, they’d be arguing with them too
The only problem I have is with the camera doing the police work. Like getting a speeding ticket for 26 in a 25 from a speed trap camera – a cop may or may not pull you over in that instance, because a cop can look at the whole scenario/variables and decide if that extra one mile really was a danger to others.
Yeah, this moron was probably using the phone. And every asshole using their phone at a red light means fewer cars get through that red light because they’re too busy looking at their phone to notice that the light has changed or the car in front of them has moved. But let’s have a person making this decision to issue a ticket – a phone at a red light at 3am is much different than a phone at a red light at 515pm.
Fuck that everyine should instantly have a ticket assesed for going one mph over the speed limit but we’re all a bunch of fucking savages who like having vehicular homicide legalized
Police have better shit to do than mobile phone enforcement
And, in what circumstance should they be speeding? That makes no sense. If there was a valid reason, you can contest the ticket anyway
There sure as fuck is no valid reason for them whatsoever to have their mobile on their lap
