2025 Ford Snitch

[foszoe]

Wouldn't it be neat if all the people who say they don't trust the media would stop trusting the media?

Well, even after I read your post, I prepared for the slippery slope responses that I was fairly certain would come.

 

[KokomoDave]

Do you want one that reports you for 56 in a 55?

I can't afford one so that is a moot thing for me. I had a '78 Mustang II w/ 302W in highschool as my 1st car. The harmonic balancer went kablooie ruining the engine and we ended up doing a swap for a 351W out of a Ford LTD police car. It could pass anything but a gas station. I was young and dumb back then. Now I'm old and dumber. I drive an older crewcab Silverado now.

 

[BigMoose]

The old Ford I knew is dead.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Thank you for not focussing on the softball That must be why you are a mod

That was a hanging curveball in the middle of the plate... it wouldn't have landed yet

 

[cbhausen]

@Denny347 has been recognized for “Dennying” threads on INGO…

I think it’s time to honor @BehindBlueI's in the same manner.

How about “BBI’d”? We’ve all gotten “Dennyd” and “BBI’d” at some point and in the vast majority of cases rightfully so. Keep on keepin’ on and stay safe out there!

 

[Cameramonkey]

From the patent, it's clear this is aimed at being installed *in police vehicles* but that's not interesting so no media outlet reports it. Never listen to the media. Always go to the primary source.

That makes more sense. My first thought is the old "if I didnt see it, it didnt happen. Even your camera doesnt count. Only mine." logic. If my doorbell cam or dash cam isnt enough to charge, how in the hell would this be any different?

I guess its not.

 

[bwframe]

I don't KNOW anything but

I wonder if this is aimed at Fleet Customers for liability? in other words a portion of their customers WANTs this?

This makes sense.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Do you want one that reports you for 56 in a 55?

so OnStar for the first year?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That makes more sense. My first thought is the old "if I didnt see it, it didnt happen. Even your camera doesnt count. Only mine." logic. If my doorbell cam or dash cam isnt enough to charge, how in the hell would this be any different?

I guess its not.

Are you thinking of the unwitnessed misdemeanor rule? Video evidence can be used to charge someone (though prosecutors tend to need/want some corroborating evidence to go along with it) but can't be used to support an outright arrest for most misdemeanors. Typically what this means is it would have to be an arrest warrant after the fact, though a long time ago I asked for legal advice if a summons was ok and was told it was. I *think* that's still the case, but I've not dealt with misdemeanors for quite awhile now so before you go issuing a summons, verify.

Felonies (and named exception misdemeanors) don't have to be witnessed by the officer to make an outright arrest. It's irrelevant to infractions, as no arrest is possible for infractions only.

Related, there are newer and stricter rules about getting video evidence into evidence that are a giant PITA that defense attorneys are using in bad faith, IMO, but within the rules.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Are you thinking of the unwitnessed misdemeanor rule? Video evidence can be used to charge someone (though prosecutors tend to need/want some corroborating evidence to go along with it) but can't be used to support an outright arrest for most misdemeanors. Typically what this means is it would have to be an arrest warrant after the fact, though a long time ago I asked for legal advice if a summons was ok and was told it was. I *think* that's still the case, but I've not dealt with misdemeanors for quite awhile now so before you go issuing a summons, verify.

Felonies (and named exception misdemeanors) don't have to be witnessed by the officer to make an outright arrest. It's irrelevant to infractions, as no arrest is possible for infractions only.

Related, there are newer and stricter rules about getting video evidence into evidence that are a giant PITA that defense attorneys are using in bad faith, IMO, but within the rules.

Yep. And since speeding is a misdemeanor...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't KNOW anything but

I wonder if this is aimed at Fleet Customers for liability? in other words a portion of their customers WANTs this?

What police department would want to be overwhelmed with what would have to amount to thousands of speeding complaints constantly?

We know people speed. Anyone who wants to write tickets can write as many as they like by sitting in a school zone, construction zone, literally anywhere on I-465, etc. etc. We don't really need a bajillion alerts that it's happening.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yep. And since speeding is a misdemeanor...

Speeding is an infraction.

*edit*
In broad strokes:
Infractions are things that are punishable by only a fine. You can't go to jail for them, getting one does not give you a criminal record, and the prosecution only needs to prove you probably did it vs beyond a reasonable doubt.

Misdemeanors are crimes, you can be jailed and/or fined, but not longer than a year for the most serious misdemeanors. Beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.

Felonies are crimes that carry a potential penalty of more than a year in jail.

 

[Cameramonkey]

What police department would want to be overwhelmed with what would have to amount to thousands of speeding complaints constantly?

We know people speed. Anyone who wants to write tickets can write as many as they like by sitting in a school zone, construction zone, literally anywhere on I-465, etc. etc. We don't really need a bajillion alerts that it's happening.

Oh, dont worry. With these cameras, they'll just use AI and fully automate the process.

Money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[Shadow01]

so OnStar for the first year?

Couldn’t say. Never had onstar.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh, dont worry. With these cameras, they'll just use AI and fully automate the process.

Money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrr!

Yeah, stationary cameras would be the easy mode answer for this. No question as to where the video came from, etc.

There's steps to getting video introduced and "it came from sumdood's car" isn't it.

The real issue remains the potential for mandatory spyware *IN* vehicles that will use video to analyze the driver to decide if they are allowed to drive or not. Computer thinks you are too sleepy or you are too drunk? No driving for you...

 

[Route 45]

From the patent, it's clear this is aimed at being installed *in police vehicles* but that's not interesting so no media outlet reports it. Never listen to the media. Always go to the primary source.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/20240239352 for anyone interested.

The patent would cover any vehicle, because that's how patents work, but actually read the examples and use case scenarios. Unless we think civilian cars are utilizing pursuit recording after identifying a speeding vehicle and alerting other vehicles in the area as to speed, location, etc...

Also published the same day was a patent for launching and retrieving drones from a vehicle by an operator in the interior of the vehicle.

Oh, thank God this technology couldn't be used by insurance companies to monitor the speeds of their customers via in-house license plate database by using sensors on volunteer commercial vehicles (who are provided a discount on their own insurance by the insurer). It's not like there are already license plate readers on commercial vehicles.

I don't know why anyone would be concerned about something being used in a manner not intended at the patent office. I'm sure that's never happened. Finally, the police are going to have a way to measure someone's speed from their cars!

 

[Leadeye]

Always wondered how that worked with game cameras and trespassers. Your camera on your property picks up somebody who is on bond or probation, as this is evidence of trespassing can bond or probation be revoked based on this?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh, thank God this technology couldn't be used by insurance companies to monitor the speeds of their customers via in-house license plate database by using sensors on volunteer commercial vehicles (who are provided a discount on their own insurance by the insurer). It's not like there are already license plate readers on commercial vehicles.

I don't know why anyone would be concerned about something being used in a manner not intended at the patent office. I'm sure that's never happened. Finally, the police are going to have a way to measure someone's speed from their cars!

I thought it was statists snitching to the police but now it's insurance?

You can't think of existing and cheaper tech that could do the exact same thing as far as reporting driving habits? And do?

Did you read the patent and see what it adds other than just alerting to speed? Did you consider it would not trigger radar/lidar detectors if only using cameras?

But they got their clicks and money and folks got their little jolt of outrage enjoyment. Hopefully some of you do sell of your Ford stock. I did alright when the banks were also supposed to crash because the media said so.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Always wondered how that worked with game cameras and trespassers. Your camera on your property picks up somebody who is on bond or probation, as this is evidence of trespassing can bond or probation be revoked based on this?

It is evidence. If it's enough to charge or not depends. Is the video clear enough to make an identification beyond a reasonable doubt it's that person? Can the time/place be authenticated to the court's satisfaction, etc.?

 

[Leadeye]

It is evidence. If it's enough to charge or not depends. Is the video clear enough to make an identification beyond a reasonable doubt it's that person? Can the time/place be authenticated to the court's satisfaction, etc.?

I've bought out enough of the criminals that this isn't the problem it was in the past, but I still keep a computer record of people the cameras encounter.