Enforcement cameras seem like the least objectionable thing police do. They catch law breakers without the possibility of violent confrontations with law enforcement or bias. Why do people object to that of all things?
Fundamentally people don't like being held accountable for their "wrongdoing". My state banned automated traffic enforcement aside from very specific circumstances, but we're stuffed to the gills with Flock cameras.
This is why democracy ultimately becomes corrupt. The voters are not willing to vote for things that might cause them short term suffering yet are good in the long term.
Because Flock data is used to prosecute the right kind of people. Automatic traffic enforcement doesn't allow any discretion, so elite folks lobby hard against it.
> Automatic traffic enforcement doesn't allow any discretion
Only if you place cameras uniformly. What you need to do to not rock the boat is exclusively place the cameras in "high crime areas", and you get a twofer: rich lawbreakers stay with off the radar, and you get a perpetual-motion machine for crime statistics.
I submitted a request for exactly that to my city clerk a few days ago. They confirmed receipt from the clerk and the local PD, but still waiting for anything substantial.
The viewpoint is because the cameras are intentionally set lower than is reasonable in order to generate revenue, err, catch speeders.
There's a contingent of people on one side of the spectrum that wants to ban all cars ever. At the other end of the spectrum is the contingent that wants to go fast. Those two groups will never agree.
I don't know what people's reason is, but I can hazard some guesses. First one is basic disagreement with the laws themselves. For example: do you actually always obey speed limits everywhere? Would you appreciate law enforcement if you got a ticket every time you exceeded the legal limit?
If they coupled strict speed limit enforcement with adjusting the legal limit to the speed at which people actually drive plus a tolerance buffer for speedometer variance, properly publicized the change with both road signs and advertising / media signs, and applied this change in a non-discriminatory way - then yes.
Certainly I wouldn’t support such strict enforcement with the current usual driver approach of aiming for a bit above the limit under good road and weather conditions, nor if applied disproportionately against less privileged people.
> If they coupled strict speed limit enforcement with adjusting the legal limit to the speed at which people actually drive plus a tolerance buffer for speedometer variance, properly publicized the change with both road signs and advertising / media signs, and applied this change in a non-discriminatory way - then yes.
Go en we're talking about the real world that already exists here and not some alternate reality, how often do you find these "if" conditions to be actually satisfied?
Or if you run a red light in the middle of the night when you have clear view of the all the intersecting roads and there's not a another car for miles, is that a crime worthy of punishment?
Because the majority of the time they are enforcing laws that don't need to be enforced, and the enforcement of which is only to pad the pockets of the police force.
> You misjudge your speed and end up going past right as the light turns red on an empty 4 way? Speeding ticket
> Go up to 85mph to pass someone using the fast lane because people are going 77 MPH?
Speeding ticket
> IPVM verified that a bipartisan amendment that would have effectively blocked police LPR programs nationwide was killed at a House committee markup on May 21, 2026.
Maybe the minimal edit is something like:
“Killed Legislation Would Have Effectively Blocked Police LPR, Including Flock”
The article contains the passage below twice.
I mean how does that happen? No proofreading? Cut and paste editing. I am always surprised when I see this in professional new sources.
——
That the amendment died quietly does not erase what its introduction signals: opposition to police LPR programs is reaching higher levels of the political agenda, and Flock is increasingly at the center of it.