this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
790 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
86264 readers
3552 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
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.
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