What goes up must come down...

Jan 19, 2025 4:46 PM

Torn down almost immediately after being put up...how long before they understand that the vast majority of us do not want an increased Surveillance State? If this was in the US, I suspect that people would be shooting at them night and day. Remember, "War is Peace, and we have always been at war with Eurasia."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/ai-traffic-cameras-cut-down-hours-after-going-up/ar-AA1xev7L?cvid=4ed0466c620348c19f80753a7a7ee6d3&ei=19

Please, US wouldn't do squat, we'd treat them like every other bad thing going on right now. Gripe, get used to it, forget. There are far less Luigi's than we might like.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Did the ad ai overreach?

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There was traffic cameras near my place that kept collecting tires and gas and getting light up. Shame

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just wait until automobile manufacturers start selling video stream data from their vehicles' cameras to police departments. Then it will be like every EV has these cameras integrated into their systems, ready to send you automated traffic tickets when they detect you going a couple miles above the speed limit on the highway.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

hacking cameras gets a whole new meaning here

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

In alberta, they got rid roadside speed traps. I stead they've put red light camera on like every intersection (in calgary) which alsp works as a speed camera.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

When they say "AI Traffic Cameras" do they mean "Traffic Cameras"

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Please do not hang a tire around the camera, fill it with gasoline, and set it on fire. This is illegal and is bad for the environment.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We have traffic monitoring cameras often placed by the state's department of transportation that are not used for enforcement but to monitor traffic and weather conditions. Red light and speed cameras are set up by municipalities and are usually very unpopular. When the people get a say, they usually vote against setting them up in the first place or to have them torn down.

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Another good citizen doing their civic duty.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I’m surprised our highway speed cameras haven’t been vandalized or dismantled for the copper wiring yet. They’ve been up for like 2 weeks.

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Were it not for the over abuse of AI for Corporate gain, AI would be super helpful with Traffic, it could accurately track and predict traffic, and if tied into lights, could optimize traffic flow, report accidents, track stolen vehicles, report debris/roadkill/potholes. But no, not that, technology is not used for its potential aide, but potential profit.

2 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 1

So we could have Self-Aware Cities? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwqN3Ur-wP0

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not AI, the original story has been amended. Just the classic British pastime of vandalising cameras used to enforce traffic laws

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

The cameras were being used to monitor a junction in Southampton where several people have died as a result of selfish drivers speeding, making illegal turns and skipping red lights. The "AI" bit is irrelevent bullshit. I have no idea why anyone is cheering this. Expecting drivers to follow the rules so they don't kill each other and pedestriains is neither draconian or Orwellian. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gwzwjke2go

2 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

These were just traffic cameras installed to prevent speeding and driving through red lights. I don't see the problem with trying to improve road safety and saving lives.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

"It is extremely concerning that anyone would take it upon themselves to vandalize these cameras."

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

BBC article update

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

We've had traffic cams in the US and people just deal with it

2 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

Remember for now, you have the right to face your accuser so if an AI camera says you’re doing something wrong how do you face that in court?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

"Here is the clear HD video of you doing something you should have known you weren't allowed to do..."

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If the evidence isn’t admissible, it doesn’t matter what’s on the recording

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Oh, I have good news for you about video recordings in public spaces in most parts of the world...

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The camera isn't doing any accusing, the company running the camera is. What if a non-AI camera records you? Do you get personally sued by the security guard that watched the tape?

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Fuck surveillance. Give us healthcare for free damnit !

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Good!

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Nice sentiment, but this is a lost war. You can't go anywhere without 12 pictures of you being taken and linked up to an image recognition database.

2 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 5

A war is only lost when you lose the will to fight it.

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Not the hero we deserve, but the hero we need

2 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 5

Remember folks -- if you can't shoot a CEO, it doesn't mean you can't help, there's always sabotage. And arson.

2 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 5

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I don't think it's illegal to put an extra lock on an empty building? You can buy traffic cones online. Graffiti can be fun and educational. Baking soda and water counteract pepper spray. Just some fun facts.

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

There is a lot of misinformation about tear gas. Here is a Marine with experience talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxdwbZ3Oeyc

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Just some fun facts indeed! .

2 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So like did they advertise they were putting up AI cameras? Or was this somebody with inside knowledge?

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

If you're paying attention, they're plainly visible at intersections.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Exactly! The road network authority has no right to data about congestion at intersections in order to better tune traffic lights!

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

?
I made no judgment about right or wrong, just stating a fact.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

How are "ai cameras" different than the normal cameras they already have? Is there a big AI label on it? Because the average person would have no way to tell apart the types of traffic cameras. So the fact they were torn down immediately after implies some sort of insider knowledge.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have no idea where to draw that line but thank you for your observation.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The island already had a traffic camera for years now, so if it was just the traffic camera you'd figure it would have been attacked multiple times already. But the timing on it switching to AI and being destroyed is just super sus to me.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We had stoplight license-plate readers that were activated when anyone drove through or made a turn at a red light without coming to a complete stop first.
There was widespread public outcry at the discovery that the amber light duration was also shortened measurably which caused significant increase in the number of automatically-issued traffic citations being generated for that intersection.
The cameras were vandalized repeatedly resulting in the amber light timing being recalibrated.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

They want us to be like China, tracking and social credit profiling everywhere you go.

2 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 7

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except it'll be from the skies with Starlink/DOD's surveillance network!

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Retired IT director here. I was responsible for security cameras among many other things. Mostly nobody ever looked at the camera footage unless there was an issue. Modern analytics helps a lot, but it sucks looking through camera footage. There’s no profiling or tracking of people in general. Analytics let you do things like follow that red sweatshirt from one camera to the next or read license plates at the driveway and notify me if a certain one arrives. The disadvantage of cameras 1/

2 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

is they enable the people who are supposed to be out and about, patrolling, showing a presence, etc. to be lazy. Instead they can just lookup an event. Then they want more and more cameras to cover the dark areas. When I retired there were 120 cameras in a building that at originally had 10. And I know my replacement was working on changing many of those cameras to 360-degree cameras, which is equal to multiplying the number by 3 or 4. So, they are well over the equivalent of 200 now. Anyway, 2/

2 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

nearly everything you see them doing on TV and in the movies with security cameras is BS. Commercial systems are nearly impossible to hack into, they don’t have infinite zoom, they don’t have thermal imaging, they can’t clear up a bad image, etc.. Then they have lots of problems like, spiders build webs in front of them and lots of other bugs love them, people hang signs and decorations and other things in front of them. Outside plants grow in the way, or a neighbor add a light that blinds them

2 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

I don't think "their" understanding is relevant; they don't *care*. The cameras are convenient for them, and if anybody else has a problem with that, screw them.

2 years ago | Likes 308 Dislikes 1

They don't give a shit about the public, it's a money grab. Totally are nothing more than a revenue stream.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Right. It's not enough to *want* them to do something else. You need to be willing to *fight* them about it.

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

And thus it is ‘our’ job to make them unsustainably inconvenient by removing them every time they are put up. Guerrilla tactics 101: annoy the occupying enemy so much that they want to leave.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So true, the police state doesn't give a single fuck about what you like , what you want or anything .else

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Make them care by making what they want unsustainable.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Cheaper to replace the cameras then pay people to do the same job.

2 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 0

And no big dollar settlements when the police officers gun down a person in a traffic stop.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Also, people know the human experience.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Not if they keep knocking them down. At some point, that very expensive part of the budget will get cut.

2 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 0

I'm out here in the cold with a mask and a harbor freight angle grinder. What's up sluts?

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Let us hope so.

2 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Sunk cost. They'll invest more to catch and stop the people doing it than it's worth

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Odd since CCTV has been a thing in the UK for decades. I mean, I love that they smashed them, but I'm surprised.

2 years ago | Likes 171 Dislikes 4

Camera vandalism has also been a steady thing in the UK for decades. This one only made the news because they got to throw "AI" in there.

2 years ago | Likes 131 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

2 years ago (deleted Apr 8, 2025 11:38 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Don't forget the necklacing.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Pearl necklace? 🤔🧐🤷😮🤧🤡

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

There was a bit on John Oliver about facial recognition cameras being installed in the UK and people being given tickets if they tried to hide their face from the cameras. That was a pilot program on a few streets. I can see why people are very against widespread implementation.

2 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

If you read the article you'll see that's not what is being discussed. Additionally, the Oliver bit was about facial recognition, not specific cameras with facial recognition. Facial recognition is software which uses a database of images to cross reference against. It's not like there are cameras that just happen to know your name by being pointed at you.

2 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

yep, and there's ANPR cameras at almost every major junction on large A roads and motorways

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No there isn't.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But public cctv is heavily regulated and usually operated by or in partnership with the police, even private cctv is regulated by gdpr and similar laws. That's not so true in other places.

2 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ai ≠ Police

2 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Two words. A.I Camera. Not just CCTV, the camera monitors drivers "behavior". Look left at the wrong time "That is dangerous driving, you get a fine".

2 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Gotcha. After I read the article it made a lot more sense.

2 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Who would you rather monitor you? A security guard that saw you talking on your phone or an AI camera that thinks it saw a brick in your hand and mislabeled you as a terrorist?

2 years ago | Likes 55 Dislikes 6

You're all aware that all licence plate recognition software / cameras in the world are machine learning based for decades now, right?

2 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Bold of you to assume the security guard wouldn't also think they saw a brick in your hand and label you a terrorist.

2 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 2

When a person mislabels you a terrorist a jury and a judge goes "oh well the security guy fucked up". when its an AI they can get bamboozled by "our models are highly trained and had an 85% confidence interval with terrorism"

2 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0