New Answer To Idiots Who Use Mobile Phones Whilst Driving

Our many governments disagree with you. Surveillance begets revenue and thus is good. If it also reduces crashes that is OK too. Privacy? Only if you are in cabinet/front bench.

4 Likes

So young and yet so cynical. :slight_smile:

The key point is that the algorithm that the surveillance camera would use to detect phone usage may fail, and in this case provably did fail. Armed with this example, people could even play games with the system. I assume that our state governments will not send people off to reeducation camps for ‘stuffing’ the system.

Why? Re-education camps could be the next big thing for our entrepreneurial pollies and donors. (notice the lack of a smiley - in these times very little to nothing seems off their tables)

2 Likes

That is assuming that the Chinese example is an smart camera and the algorithm failed. I am a little sceptical about the so called highly advanced surveillance technologies in China. The Chinese government is very good at releasing government propaganda (having lived in China saw many examples) to assist with its law enforcement activities. If one beleives that they have such technologies, then one is less likely to not follow the norm.

In relation to mobile infringement notices, my mother was pulled over in the 2000s by a local constable for using a mobile phone when driving. My mother said that she wasn’t using a phone and the constable didn’t believe her has he had taken a photo of her driving the other way while her mobile was against her ear. He continued to write a ticket (IN) until my mother said that it was impossible for her to be on the phone when driving as she didn’t have a mobile. He then left the vehicle for few minutes (presume to do some checks) and then returned cancelling the IN and apologising for the mistake. Humans can also make mistakes as well.

3 Likes

Fair enough. Worth putting “face scratching” to the test in Australia regardless of what is or isn’t happening in China.

2 Likes

Do we trust our governments to accept they have signed on to a faulty system even if they have? Robodebt would be a great example of what we could expect. Stonewalling is one of our greatest government triumphs over doing the right things when they get it wrong.

1 Like

At least in Australia (and many other countries with similar government and judicial processes), there is an opportunity to request a review and/or appeal the decision made.

While it is not good for mistakes to be made in the first place, as least they can be corrected.

Any human involvement in anything, including AI and associated technologies, will result in mistakes.

The sign of a good government (applies equally to business/individuals) is how they learn from the mistake and change systems and processes to ensure it doesn’t happen again. While this often happens with government, it is less likely to happen with business/individuals as there is often significant costs borne to make the corrections.

1 Like

The Banking RC and how that got started must be reassuring that we have an opportunity to request


The Centrelink clients still dealing with Robodebts seem less fortunate to date.

1 Like

A bit off topic but it does exist


I have found that if one has evidence contrary of a government decision being made, it is a simple process to request a review and have the original decision overturned.

Some of the issues with ‘Robodebt’ may be unable to prove that DHS got it wrong or that DHS got it right and one is not happy that they have accrued a debt because of either poor financial reporting by the client or being caught out by data matching by DHS.

In any event, audits should be done regularly rather than one offs like with ‘Robodebt’. If they were done say biannually/annually, things would be fresh in the clients mind, the client would know that they were going to be audited and to keep records and the likely debt accumulation where it exists is likely to be more modest and easier to manage.

You are a believer in our’ good government’. I will believe it when it presents itself. Along the way


and

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/27/centrelink-an-unworkable-mess-employee-tells-robodebt-inquiry_a_22014411/

but

so I guess we can disagree on the efficacy of our protections, and a difference of opinion might be most evident for those presumed guilty rather than those watching from afar.

Although after lots of consternation


1 Like

There is but it can require time, patience and perseverance. Many people will opt to pay the fine and move on, even if the demand for payment was not validly issued. At any kind of sensible hourly rate, if it is only a fine involved it is often more economic just to pay the fine (by which I mean that if loss of licence is involved, or jail time, then it may make sense to fight and fight and fight, regardless of the effective hourly rate).

1 Like

They may have indeed reported it properly at the time, Robodebt is raising debts for income that was for some earnt 7 or greater years in the past. This is even beyond the time that ATO requires documentation to be kept for financial information. Then when the system data matches the income from that period

  1. the client possibly is unable to find the original payslips or
  2. the client may not be able to refresh the data from their employer or other source as the 7 years holding of data has been exceeded and thus has been destroyed or the business/employer no longer exists or has died.
  3. the debt is calculated over a 12 month period even though at the time the client complied and provided notice that they had become gainfully employed and had ceased receiving benefits but the job was very high paying and thus the averaging would calculate incorrectly that the person had a debt.
  4. DHS averages the income over some period (usually over 12 months as it is from tax records) even though it may have been reported correctly in the month/fortnight of receipt and the DHS payments had been adjusted to properly reflect that income at that time (eg no DHS payment for that fortnight as income precluded it)


It may not even be 7 or greater years as many taxpayers are only required to retain documentation for a period of a couple of years and have then destroyed it thinking there was no further need to hold onto it.

3 Likes

Clearly if you are scratching your face you are not concentrating and do not have both hands on the wheel 
 lack of control, probably illegal everywhere - case closed :rofl::rofl::rofl:

(not sure how one changes gears in a <god forbid> manual !!!)

3 Likes

You scratch your face in order to get rid of a driver-distracting itch. It is safety-positive. :slight_smile:

1 Like

In the IoT maybe:
You: [name] Shift from 1st to 2nd gear.
Siri: I don’t do manuals
Cortana: 1st to 2nd? What kind of gear would you like?
Alexa: That will be $450. Would you like to order?
Wife: I told you to get an automatic!
You: clutch-in/shift/clutch-out without further comment

4 Likes

Another example of “Do as I say, not as I do”.

image

2 Likes

Attention to the road is paramount. You will be caught and fined mercilessly, as well as ridiculed for dangerous practices such as your front seat passenger watching something on a tablet screen.

From a new Kia announcement:

Australian cars will be available with a 10.25-inch touchscreen, 8-inch head-up display and eight-speaker Bose stereo paired with mood lighting that can pulse to the beat of music.

The authorities bleating and revenue grabbing seem a bit hollow in the face of that, at least just a little bit.

6 Likes

I’m wondering how that is legal, if it is being used to control the sound system (and is visible to the driver). Do they justify it because you control the radio using it and the radio could broadcast important road condition updates?

4 Likes

Me too.

Maybe flooded roads will be with thumping blue lighting, bush fires red, and cyclones blue and green alternating with interspersed red.

5 Likes

What a nightmare. I’ll add this to our :lemon: spotting list.

5 Likes