H-Net Discussion Networks - Tangential but relevant: Traffic cameras, surveillance, and "the Man vs. Machine debate" (ay, and Woman, too)

View the H-Utopia Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Utopia's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Utopia's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Utopia home page.

From: Peter Sands <sands@UWM.EDU>
List Editor: Peter Sands <sands@UWM.EDU>
Editor's Subject: Tangential but relevant: Traffic cameras, surveillance, and "the Man vs. Machine debate" (ay, and Woman, too)
Author's Subject: Tangential but relevant: Traffic cameras, surveillance, and "the Man vs. Machine debate" (ay, and Woman, too)
Date Written: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:36:30 -0600
Date Posted: Fri, 05 Nov 2009 11:36:30 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Erlich, Richard D. Dr. [mailto:erlichrd@muohio.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:20 PM
To: Erlich, Richard D. Dr.
Subject: Tangential but relevant: Traffic cameras, surveillance, and "the
Man vs. Machine debate" (ay, and Woman, too)

------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110404
747.html?nav=igoogle

Shudder speed
Rise of the stealthy traffic camera fuels drivers' disgust

By Neely Tucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 5, 2009

* * * "They make too much money for cities to just stop using them," says
Joe Scott, a D.C. entrepreneur who has developed Phantomalert, a
downloadable software for GPS units and an app for smart phones that is
updated by subscribers who spot new cameras sprouting up. He started it a
few years ago by logging in a couple of hundred cameras in the D.C. region.
Subscribers have since uploaded 200,000 more. It's like "Terminator," humans
against machines. * * *

There's a well-intentioned principle to get drivers to change their
behavior, but there's overwhelming evidence that doesn't happen," he says.
"As soon as the cameras are gone, people go right back to driving what they
were before."

He also brings us back to the Man vs. Machine debate.

He says the cameras are hardly infallible, but that courts often treat them
as if they are. For example, the Maryland report showed that Montgomery
County, in screening the tickets to mail out, has had to kick out 23,266
"violations" from May 2007 to June 2009 because "No violation
occurred/operator error." And 10,813 were tossed for reasons including
"power interruption" and "equipment malfunction."

Once in court, though, it wasn't even close. Machines 3,098, Revolting
Peasants 10. * * *

Not mentioned but another useful allusion: Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano.
During the Revolution in that novel, one person specializes in shooting out
a variety of traffic machines (of the friendly persuasion type); and at
least one person I know celebrated Fidel Castro's victory in Cuba by
smashing a parking meter.
        (And the article may've missed Orwell ....)

I'd be curious how this issue sorts out politically. Many firmly opposed to
surveillance by Big Brother might allow public safety attempts by, and
public revenue for, various Little Brothers. The cameras may or may not save
lives - and decrease maiming, injuries, and property damage. If they do,
though, how many lives (etc.) should be saved to justify more surveillance,
and, possibly, the precedent of assumption of guilt?
        "If it saves just one life ..." can be a very dangerous argument -
freedom is not free -  so, personally, I always want to see some numbers.
Other opinions from others out there?
                (I was figuratively hit with a $400 fine for going through
what turned out to be a really, really quick yellow light - red in the
photo. People might have different views if they'd been literally hit by a
car that ran a red or was driven way too fast for conditions.)

Rich E.

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online