this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
720 points (99.3% liked)
deflock.me
477 readers
961 users here now
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are AI-powered cameras that capture and analyze images of all passing vehicles, storing details like your car’s location, date, and time. They also capture your car’s make, model, color, and identifying features such as dents, roof racks, and bumper stickers, often turning these into searchable data points. These cameras collect data on millions of vehicles—regardless of whether the driver is suspected of a crime. While these systems can be useful for tracking stolen cars or wanted individuals, they are mostly used to track the movements of innocent people.
Learn more at deflock.me
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is an interesting read: https://recfaces.com/articles/what-is-gait-recognition
You can do it at home with open-source software like OpenCV. The world's largest companies that have been collecting and analyzing surveillance data for more than a decade are now desperate to find profitable use cases for their "AI"...
This paper makes it sound like it's still basically guesswork. It's a lot like lie detector tests. They don't really work, but maybe they can be somewhat useful tools when combined with lots of other things?
Police already arrest the wrong people, even when they have the name and address for a warrant. Even when the person doesn't match the picture they are given, police lock 'em up anyway.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how accurate stuff like this is; it'll just be another tool assholes, not just the police, use to justify being mean to people they don't like.
I want to preface this with: I agree with you.
But the success of most things algorithm related are nowhere near 100%. Look at facial recognition, or even fingerprint recognition. There are false positives, to the point that innocent people have been convicted on them.
All tech has a margin of error, and it’s us idiots (meaning humans in general) that place an oversized trust in it.
There's a difference between things that are based in sound science but aren't 100% accurate, and things that are based on, at best, untested hypotheses.
I'd put gait analysis along with things like bite mark analysis, phrenology, etc. The appropriate level of trust in it is near zero percent. But, largely because it's expensive, people convince themselves that something that expensive has to work. It's similar to a lie detector test. They strap so many different things to you to measure your body, and have an expert in the machine who studies what's happening. That leads people to believe that it has to work, at least a bit. But, there's a reason why lie detector tests are generally not admissible in court. Even though they genuinely can tell... something, the potential for them to be misunderstood by the jury is too high for them to be allowed into evidence.