The Mississippi Department of Public Safety should not have been surprised when it received criticism recently for a surprise plan to use artificial intelligence-powered cameras for traffic enforcement.
The plan, first reported by the Magnolia Tribune website, would pair AI with cameras “to identify traffic violations in high-crash corridor areas where officers cannot routinely work due to construction zones or other impediments to patrolling.”
A top Public Safety official said the cameras would send images of vehicles to an officer parked ahead. The officer would determine if a vehicle was violating the law, and if so, would stop the driver and write a ticket.
The objections may have been excessive, but they were understandable. Critics of the plan said it was just another Big Brother effort to spy on everything the public does. It didn’t take long before the Public Safety commissioner said the agency would not spend the $2 million in federal funds for the AI cameras.
But hold on a minute. If the agency only was going to use the cameras in unusual locations, such as an area of highway construction where there are fewer and sometimes narrower lanes, what’s the problem?
Most likely, the critics of the AI cameras would ask that exact question when a criminal defendant claims he’s being unfairly persecuted. “If you do the crime, you do the time,” supporters of aggressive law enforcement tend to say.
Until it comes to traffic cameras. Why shouldn’t we enforce the traffic laws? The AI proposal may have been handled poorly, but protecting highway workers and punishing drivers who ignore warnings to reduce their speed in construction zones is worth an extra effort.
Further, we are kidding ourselves if we think AI traffic cameras are the last straw in the battle for personal privacy.
A large percentage of the public willingly gives up its privacy in its own home, for example. Without sounding too conspiratorial, how many of us really think companies like Amazon and Apple don’t use their Alexa and Siri devices to listen in on conversations in a home and send some of the information to a computer system to sell to advertisers?
That’s just one example. Doorbell cameras and other security cameras in and around homes and businesses are another. Not only do these videos gather evidence for criminal cases or record accidents on the street, but they can help lawmen look for a young child who wandered away from home.
No one is complaining about the trend of having police officers wear body cameras. When there are allegations of police misconduct, such recordings often go a long way toward proving who’s right.
Any other examples? Yes, plenty. Our smartphones reveal exactly where we are, and use our browsing habits to send us ads designed for our interests. Facial recognition technology in stadiums and other buildings helps identify troublemakers. And law enforcement’s license tag scanning equipment has been proven successful in locating criminal suspects.
We have rapidly moved into a world where many of us allow or welcome technological intrusions into our privacy. Given that, AI cameras for unusual situations like highway construction do not seem like an extreme invasion.
The Department of Public Safety has learned the wrong way to propose something that blends video and artificial intelligence. Its leaders will be back one day with a better presentation, and the state ought to listen.
