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.
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.
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.
Vague / broad laws that allow anyone to be arrested or fined for anything are a distinguishing feature of police states, and solid basis for blanket opposition-to or at least skepticism-of laws in general (e.g. “illegal strike” are we slaves?).
I’m not opposed to law itself; however, I struggle to respect laws from non-democratic governments. Unfortunately, that’s all governments right now. I’m not aware of any electoral democracy at any level of government. Electoral Democracy has four required mechanism: Ranked Voting, Lottery Option, Recall Mechanism, Randomized Districting. That’s what it takes to acquire consent of the governed. That’s what it takes for legitimacy. Most governments are electoral oligarchies that function like weak police states for the lower classes.
This is a tragedy, but we can start installing the mechanisms required for electoral democracy at a local level and in private organizations to slowly entrench democracy and establish norms / standards before we slide farther into the oligachic police state we’re currently facing.
Holy based
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.
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.
One I got a $125 ticket for driving 27 near a school on a Saturday in Washington, so no system is perfect…
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.
Maybe don’t be a dick in traffic?
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.
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
Wouldn’t they have to prove it was a phone and not some black address book or something
What country is this? Isn’t this kinda… normal?? The fine seems excessive though (depending on currency)
From the way the image is described, there is no obvious reason to think the driver was distracted or otherwise impaired while driving. Moreover, the decision as to whether the driver was distracted by a phone wasn’t made by a law enforcement official. We most definitely don’t want to make this out to be “normal”.
Did you even read the article? Even the title gives some of this away…
It depends a lot on what the law says I’d say. Just like having an open container of alcohol in your car is illegal in many places, it’s not a bad thing per se if having a phone on one’s lap is treated the same way as if it’s being used.
Unlike what the article says, phone use in a car is not seen as a minor traffic violation in many places. In the US literally hundreds of people die each year due to phone use while driving specifically.
I’ll tell you what I told the other guy because you clearly didn’t read the article carefully, as is obvious from your comment.
Actually, I’ll word it a bit differently: based on the description of the image, show me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ongoing “phone use”, as you just claimed. Those are your words, its what you just claimed, so you should have absolutely no issue explaining to me. Right?
Well, that is unless you go back and reread the article and realize that you won’t be able to. Not in a reasonable, legally sound manner anyway.
deleted by creator
I’m an enemy of the panoptic surveillance state of course, but at least in this instance the all-seeing eyes of big brother found a worthy target this time. She, and a whole lot more people, shouldn’t be driving cars.
Edit: all of you who have downvoted me and castigated my words are fools and animals who do not understand or deserve the rights you enjoy. Better men than you gifted you with liberties in the vein hope that you would use them to become more enlightened than themselves, now you will allow the cabal of pedophiles to take everything from the rest of us, so that you might sleep more soundly in the knowledge that when you are slighted by a criminal, they will be found. Of course, such a criminal state would not bother to find your criminal, as its masters are all too busy using the Palantir to spy on your children as they shower.
I think reading comprehension mihht be a prerequisite for being an “enemy of the panoptic surveillance state”. You should look into that.
Copying this from another reply, because it fits both:
I’m saying that it’s good that she was ticketed. I still don’t like having cameras everywhere watching and tracking your every move and every word. This was an instance of a bad system producing a good outcome, just as brutal American police officers who rape and pillage sometimes arrest murderers as well.
You people, fools, sheeps and dogs, do not have the reading comprehension to it understand my sentiment, yet you falsely accuse me of failing to read.
Calm down, Pol Pot. Before dehumizing everyone else and declaring yourself the guardian of all truth, consider this: admitting you made a basic mistake instead of going on an infantile tyrade about how people don’t deserve rights will go a long way for you personally. Do it for yourself, not for something or someone else.
Thank me later. Or don’t. Just as long as you try. There is no shame in making a mistake. Even less so in admitting it and apologising (quite the opposite actually). But there is a lot of shame in knowingly doubling down. It’s clear what happened. Just own up to it. With time, you will discover it’s almost like a super power. Your anxiety levels are also bound to go down.
Now go have a cold one and try and contemplate on the message without spewing vitriol toward the messengers.
Did you read the title? She had the phone face down in her lap.
Yes, and I’m saying that it’s good that she was ticketed. I still don’t like having cameras everywhere watching and tracking your every move and every word. This was an instance of a bad system producing a good outcome, just as brutal American police officers who rape and pillage sometimes arrest murderers as well.
You people, fools, sheeps and dogs, do not have the reading comprehension to it understand my sentiment, yet you falsely accuse me of failing to read.
Why would it be in her lap while driving if she wasn’t using it shortly before they picture was taken?
Yes, let’s just make the worst possible assumptions about every person in every situation ever. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that?!
You might as well be saying “PLEASE SIR, TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY, I’M TOO STUPID TO EXERCISE THEM ANYWAY”
What assumption are you making then? Why was her phone out of she wasn’t using it? Your lap is not a storage location that makes any sense when driving. You don’t have a right to drive a car, there are a lot of rules that must be followed. Do you want someone to run you over because they aren’t paying attention?
Here’s my assumption: fuck you prove it. That should be the assumption of everyone accused of a crime. Especially accused by a bunch of cameras installed by the Epstein class to spy on us all day. I keep my phone on my lap so I can listen to podcasts and thats where I can hear it best.
So maybe stop simping for billionaire pedophiles and remember you are supposed to be someone living in a free society and protected by the rule of law instead of licking fascist boots.
The fuck is wrong with you? You think I’m simping for billionaires because i don’t think you should be able to drive while using your phone? And back to the original question, what good reason could she have to have her phone out? I can’t think of one.
You need to go back and read the article because you obviously don’t understand what actually happened.
I mean, holy hell batman, people are actually losing their ability to read and comprehend what they just read and then go on weird tyrades while totally misrepresenting the substance of the article because they were too lazy to read more than every 50th word.
This is fucking scary guys. Get a fucking grip. It’s not that long and the language used is not that complex. Adults should be able to read and comprehend this short basic article, for fucks sake.
We are SO doomed as a species.
First of all I just gave you a reason, so I’m going to agree with the other guy in that you’re extremely bad at reading comprehension.
As for the rest? Yeah you were 100% simping for the Epstein class. Anyone who supports the police surveillance state is doing the work of pedophile billionaires. That’s who you’re in bed with. So either get the fuck out of that bed or keep licking I guess. Ain’t going to help you though.
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.
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.
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
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
That’s the law here. Phone has to be securely stowed. Driving with it on your lap gets you a distracted driving ticket. Even if you weren’t planning on looking at it. A sudden traffic move means its falling on the floor and driver is going to try to reach for it.
Yup. I’m not surprised at Americans being opposed to it, but here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving. The fine itself is issued after a person verifies the photo. And I am fully supportive of it. Driving a motor vehicle is an insanely fucking dangerous task. If your full attention isn’t on it, you deserve to receive a fine. Keep the phone stowed securely in a holder, or away in your pocket.
The freedom of me to be able to make my trip on foot or bike—or even in my own car—without being killed by you far outweighs any idea of freedom you might have to be able to have your phone on your lap.
Australians and Canadians have some pretty bad entitlement when it comes to driving. But neither of us are anywhere near as entitled as Americans. Discussions like the one in this thread make that very clear. !fuckcars@lemmy.world
here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving. The fine itself is issued after a person verifies the photo.
The case in the headline was actually in Queensland, but gadgetreview.com seems to be a terrible site that doesn’t give a shit what it’s even reporting on.
Especially nowadays, there’s no reason to have your phone out. Bluetooth connection to infotainment system. Blue tooth add on to old soundsystem. Retro fit systems, or a single one touch ear bud etc.
I am not a fan of the all-seeing panopticon, personally. That said, I personally feel much more entitled to good public transit and walkable neighborhoods than to a car.
I have heard bad things about how Flock works in particular with respect to tracking people, abuse of police powers, etc. But it was not involved in the event in this article, and it is not the only way of doing mobile phone detection.
My state uses a company called Acusensus, which only captures images for long enough to run the AI over them and then deletes all those without even being seen by a human if no offence is detected, among other privacy safeguards. The humans who do review the ones that AI detects as an offence don’t even get to see where or when the alleged offence took place.
Americans don’t love freedom, they love being special. If we apply the law evenly, we can’t selectively apply it againsts Blacks, Minorities and Poors. The law is there to keep me comfortable and them in line. If we start applying the laws like I’m not special, it’ll just be anarchy.
Why do you think SovCit nonsense got so big there? Gotta be special, I learned the secret Naval codes that unlock free travel.
Americans don’t love freedom, they love being special.
Yeah, we love our own freedom, not freedom for other people.
I’m not surprised at Americans being opposed to it, but here in Australia we have cameras that detect phone usage while driving.
They’re also against all their movements being recorded, ID requirements for websites, etc. Crazy people, who would ever want to not be tracked every second of their waking lives?
Sure, and I’ll agree with them on those points.
But Americans tend to be the most likely to take things a step too far. Opposing speeding cameras, red light cameras, and phone use cameras is not the same as those things. These are all dangerous but normalised behaviours that should be cracked down on for genuine public safety.
I’m not American myself, but phone use cameras can’t work without being constantly on. Speeding cameras flash when speeding is detected, red light cameras too. Phone detection requires AI so it’s gonna be a constant video stream. Everyone’s going to be recorded 24/7 and it doesn’t matter if you’re driving, cycling or walking. Who says how long the data is being kept and where it’s going?
I tend to think that having speeding cameras in crucial spots is necessary (in some places they straight up exist to collect funds though) and a busy or dangerous intersection absolutely merits a red light camera… But I don’t want phone detection cameras purely because of how invasive it is.
Who says how long the data is being kept and where it’s going?
The government says. They’re the ones operating the cameras. Absolutely, they should not be used for any other purpose than their stated one. No video saved, only still frames kept long enough for the AI to make a determination, and kept longer if that determination is that there was a phone detected, so the photo can be used as evidence.
But in that situation, where the government is operating it in accordance with security and privacy best practice, the safety benefits far outweigh any theoretical downsides. This is not some theoretical. Over 1000 people die every year in Australia on our roads. Approximately 16% of serious car crashes are linked to mobile phone use.
We need to stop treating driving like a sacred right, and start treating it like what it is: an incredibly dangerous activity in need of heavy regulation.
Uh why do you think that the private companies running the service are just going to do what they’re told? For that matter, what makes you think the government itself wants a privacy-first solution? It’s better to keep data indefinitely in case you need it in the future.
They alreayd have all that information, you’re just saying you want people to be able to drive while on the phone
“They already have all that information” should not be the same as “I’m OK with them constantly surveilling me”. That kind of thinking is exactly why they can continue to double down on all the crazy surveillance and privacy invasion. You’re normalizing not having any privacy.
Idk apparently we really the need the freedom to drive recklessly fuck this dogshit country lmao
I think this is common everywhere, but especially in the US there is the belief that there are “bad drivers” and “good. drivers” and so when speed cameras or anti-phone device catching someone that looks like them, it’s obvious “collateral damage”.
In my experience there are no good drivers, everyone gets distracted sometimes, and the myth of some uniquely “bad drivers” out there allows people to self justify their distracted driving because they aren’t one of the out-group.
Exactly, everyone tailgates everyone handles their turns like shit, everyone speeds. The only good drivers are the ones sticking to the speed limit in the right lane everyone else drives like they want to die in a fiery crash. Oh but everyone slows down to rubber neck someone on the shoulder.
A danger to herself and others. Well fined.
Loser. Pay up! Put your phone away.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Just think how safe the world would be if everyone was monitored 24 hours per day, for their safety of course.
deleted by creator
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.
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).
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.
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.
There is zero technical barrier for this happening.
I guess we’ll have to make a disincentivization barrier instead.
