AmbitiousProcess (they/them)

That anybody can access them if they’re smart enough?

Not all cameras have security vulnerabilities. Assuming it’s a matter of “smarts” is ridiculous. Plain old traffic cameras that solely detect speeding, especially those installed without additional “smart” features like Flock’s, rarely have breaches, because they are by their very nature quite simple systems.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, or that cases don’t exist, but I’ve seen far more harm come from actual, preventable traffic deaths than I’ve seen from hacked speeding cameras. I’ve seen zero instances of that being used to cause harm, thus far.

You clearly are fine being surveiled though

I am not. That is why I am clearly advocating solely for systems with a design that reduces the chances of remote access, can’t engage in mass surveillance, and only send data on those actively speeding, while never transmitting anything about literally everybody else. Have you even read my comments?

You clearly don’t get my points, I’m sorry if I’m somehow not explaining them clearly enough, but fine, I’m done. You win, or whatever. Good job.

Or, why not just build roads that inhibit speeding

As I already stated, doing that is not quick, easy, or cheap. Mounting a camera to a pole is much more cost effective, and quick to set up in the short term, even if it’s not the ideal long-term solution.

They’ve been proven to reduce speed, injuries, and deaths, and there’s vanishingly few cases in which regular, non-“smart” traffic cameras operating under the technological standards I mentioned have ever been utilized for any form of surveillance that produced a measurable harm for any individual, that I could find. That is why I advocate for those, not for “smart” ones like Flock’s.

I don’t think it should be a permanent solution, but I’d rather have speed cameras now, with road improvements later, over zero measures to prevent speeding now, with the hope that traffic calming infrastructure will be feasible and actually get done later down the line. Infrastructure isn’t free, and cameras aren’t either, but cameras are a hell of a lot cheaper.

Maybe police should go back to being visible on the street to control driver behavior

I’d rather avoid inflating police budgets if I can help it. Especially since such a system then lends itself to those same cops advocating for increased surveillance measures because it makes their job easier. They’re the people who wanted the built-in ALPR systems, after all.

city road design be built around calming traffic patterns

100% agree. Yet while I want these to be more widespread, they take money, time, and lots of urban planning. In the meantime, I see traffic cameras (specifically those NOT integrated with ALPR systems that store locations in a central database) as a good stopgap solution for areas that don’t yet/can’t build out those measures in a reasonable timeframe.

instead of using completely undercover normal looking vehicles for traffic enforcement and then raking in millions of dollars by sitting on their ass and letting the camera do all the work?

Also agreed. The pigs don’t need more money for doing less work, hence why I think the prior idea of having them be visible is still a bad idea, because they can simply sit there and… also do nothing.

And if they set quotas, then the measure becomes a goal, and it ceases to be a good measure, as cops will just pull more people over because it “seemed like they were going fast”, and everyone’s days get just a little bit worse.

There are obviously alternatives, I don’t deny that. But as good as infrastructure and cultural improvements can be, it doesn’t change the fact that speeding cameras have proven themselves to be immensely effective, and don’t require massive infrastructure projects, much more costly spending, and long-time cultural shifts. That’s just the unfortunate reality of the situation.

I’m a big digital rights and privacy advocate, and I don’t advocate for “spy cameras.” I advocate for privacy-preserving systems that improve society when they can exist in such a way.

A camera that only sends your plate to a police system when you speed, and automatically sends you a ticket for endangering other people is not a surveillance system. It’s a public safety measure, with justifiable, minimum data transmission requirements to operate effectively. A system that tracks every location your plate was seen is a surveillance system. That is not what non-“smart” traffic cameras are.

Speeding cameras are the first system, unless integrated with an ALPR system, in which case they become a surveillance system. I am advocating for the former, not the latter.

Edit: For everyone downvoting me, please read my follow-up responses. I’m not advocating for surveillance, I’m advocating for privacy-preserving systems that simply send a ticket if you speed, without recording your location every single time you pass any camera, rather than a system that does, because that’s actually a surveillance network.

As much as it’s true that a lot of these cameras are just becoming other ways to engage in surveillance, it’s also true that they do a lot to manage speeding. For example, NYC had a 94% reduction in speeding in areas with the cameras. It’s also true that most existing speed cameras simply aren’t equipped to be converted into ALPR systems. Most ALPR deployments are done via the installation of brand-new hardware, which many places simply can’t justify the additional, new costs of.

This can be done with minimal surveillance capabilities, and often is in many places. (local compute board identifies license plates, calculates speeds, sends them to an isolated cloud service, and only forwards data to the police department if it was actually a speeding infraction, otherwise the data is wiped) The ALPR cameras are primarily being installed in specific areas, but aren’t always across-the-board implementations, and sometimes avoid entire cities.

For example, ALPRs are becoming popular around Washington, but the Seattle police department only has a few ALPRs solely mounted on vehicles, but zero mounted in stationary locations. (“SPD’s ALPR cameras are not fixed in location”) These aren’t even used for speeding cases, but are used for missing vehicle cases, and the speeding cameras are entirely separate.

It doesn’t make sense to eliminate all cameras, even the speeding ones, just because other cameras can be ALPRs. We should simply advocate for removing ALPRs, not speeding cameras. This is why organizations like the EFF, dedicated to protecting people’s privacy, have previously argued against these cameras broadly not because speeding cameras are also bad, but because the way those speeding camera systems were designed allowed them to also be used as ALPRs. However, I haven’t seen a single case of them arguing against cameras that are solely speeding cameras with limited capacity for surveillance, because it’s just not a very big issue.

Sorry, long rant 😅