Yes, that's an interesting case as cameras are routinely calibrated, but the software is closed source which I think is a mistake. It should be possible to challenge whether a system is operating correctly if you have decent evidence against it e.g. GPS tracking. I do think that modern cars should be fitted with a black box device with the owner having ultimate control over access to it, so they could submit it for evidence to prevent miscarriages of justice.
> I do think that modern cars should be fitted with a black box device with the owner having ultimate control over access to it, so they could submit it for evidence to prevent miscarriages of justice
I’m not sure this is workable: if the owner had control, there’d be a cottage industry of people offering to fake evidence against camera tickets. If the owner doesn’t, it’d get requested by police and insurance routinely and since most drivers regularly break local traffic laws that’d have a big negative impact on the owners, which makes me think it’s politically infeasible. Insurance companies might try to mandate that but I imagine they are very careful about changes which could shift customers.
I think those issues could be overcome by using encryption and checksums for the logs with the decryption key held by a third party that would read and release the data on request by the owner or in criminal cases where the owner was a victim.
The more likely model is that the insurance companies own and provide the black boxes in return for reduced premiums from the owner.
The current situation is that some drivers run their own dashcams and can choose to provide video evidence, but that could be open to abuse if someone very carefully edits the video and no-one spots it.
I agree that the drivers shouldn't be forced to self-incriminate - the police should be using their own evidence which could well be from other drivers submitting their own driving data/video.
