Comments

  • But it's for safety, not revenue generation!  These programs should be considered entrapment.
  • The value of Rekor's stock plunged 40 percent after the Texas legislature decided not to take up automated insurance ticketing legislation

    Paper tags for everyone!
  • If you have to keep changing the name of your company, you may not be on the up-and-up.
  • Ahhh, subby...

    You don't know how these work. The municipality contracts with the ticket company. If there isn't a minimum amount of revenue, the municipality pays a penalty. It doesn't matter to the ticket company, because the municipality are the ones who pay them, not the ticket recipient.

    The whole farking setup is a scam.
  • According to TFA, this system was intended to find people whose car insurance had lapsed.

    Increasing the surveillance state to enforce the government-required purchase of a service?

    Sounds perfectly Republican to me.

    So does the fact that the private company failed to meet its promises and lied about the potential revenue.

    Texas will find another company to do it -- for $afety, of course.
  • Meh. This particular camera has nothing to do with speed or red lights. I'm sympathetic to people who get those kind of violations. I do believe that there are circumstances where driving safely and sticking rigidly to the letter of the law are mutually exclusive, and the camera has no way to make a value judgement on those matters. To say nothing of the assumption that the person who owns the car was in the driver seat.

    This camera system was supposed to identify and fine folks who have uninsured cars on the road. I have zero sympathy for that.  It's not a judgement call; either the car is properly insured or it's not. It's the owner's responsibility to have insurance on the car, whether the owner is driving it or not.  I don't have an issue with the concept.

    Now, I still have a big problem with private companies administering this. If the company can maintain the cameras, issue the citations, do the bookkeeping, and make a profit off a ~25% cut of the fine, well I think it should be no problem for the state to administer the entire thing. Locally, they've outfitted a couple of police cars with license plate readers which ping on the cop's computer when they run across a car with invalid registration/insurance. The state swears up and down that the system doesn't keep records of valid plates and couldn't be used to track citizen movement. If that's true it seems like a better system than stationary cameras and ticket-by-mail.
  • In an earnings statement for the first quarter, however, Rekor reported generating only $245,000 in revenue

    Not sure about this news outlet.  I was wondering why attorneys would be lining up to sue a company that doesn't even pull in $250,000 per quarter so I looked up their F/S.  They actually have over $4,000,000 in revenue in the first quarter.

    They aren't making any money, and are only cash flow positive because of IPO proceeds, but their revenues are much higher than this article states.

    https://sec.report/Document/0001654954​-21-005348/
  • RI_Red: for $afety, of course.


    It must be working... I already feel safer all of the way over here in Utah!!
  • Mikey1969: RI_Red: for $afety, of course.

    It must be working... I already feel safer all of the way over here in Utah!!


    I want to buy your rock!
  • "Investors".

    Why the fark are there investors in a law enforcement action? That for-profit law enforcement hasn't been made completely illegal due to the inherent conflict of interest and the propensity for abuse points to some sick corruption in our congress and the courts.
  • Eightballjacket: https://sec.report/Document/000165495​4​-21-005348/


    From this link:

    "The increase in revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2021 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2020, was a result of additional products and programs the Company offered, increases in our direct sales and Partners Program sales. In the first quarter of 2021, we initiated services for Oklahoma's UVED Program which has issued over 25,000 notices of non-compliance and generated revenue of $245,000 revenue in the current quarter."
  • What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.
  • What an oddly old fashioned website.
  • Russ1642: What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.


    Under what law?
  • Here is Missouri a few years ago we had red light cameras.   But they outsourced it to a private company.  Turns out a private company cant give you a ticket.  So the cities said "oh we will just its a non moving violation", well the courts said the City cant change state laws.  So the camera's are still there, but the dont do anything anymore.  Im sure us taxpayers are still on the hook for paying them not being used anymore.
  • Merltech: But it's for safety, not revenue generation!  These programs should be considered entrapment.


    Entrapment no.  Violation of constitutional right to question your accuser and test accuracy of camera?  You bet.
  • MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Eightballjacket: https://sec.report/Document/0001654954​-21-005348/

    From this link:

    "The increase in revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2021 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2020, was a result of additional products and programs the Company offered, increases in our direct sales and Partners Program sales. In the first quarter of 2021, we initiated services for Oklahoma's UVED Program which has issued over 25,000 notices of non-compliance and generated revenue of $245,000 revenue in the current quarter."


    So the $245,000 was revenue from one customer. The article made it sound like it was their total revenue
  • Tinderlicious: Merltech: But it's for safety, not revenue generation!  These programs should be considered entrapment.

    Entrapment no.  Violation of constitutional right to question your accuser and test accuracy of camera?  You bet.


    Confront your accuser with what?  This system is designed to identify people without insurance. There's not even a debate of "the camera says you were speeding/you say you weren't." A picture of your car on a public roadway combined with no insurance on file would be pretty irrefutable - "oh no, that's not my blue Honda with license plate ABC-123. Must be someone else!"

    Still better ways to implement it than privatization and stationary cameras, but a far better violation to go after than speeding or red lights.
  • This is a popular trend in the UK, just saying.

    aftermathnews.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
  • tobcc: Here is Missouri a few years ago we had red light cameras.   But they outsourced it to a private company.  Turns out a private company cant give you a ticket.  So the cities said "oh we will just its a non moving violation", well the courts said the City cant change state laws.  So the camera's are still there, but the dont do anything anymore.  Im sure us taxpayers are still on the hook for paying them not being used anymore.


    We have a few still in Tucson, even after we voted to remove them. The physical cameras are still there, but they can't send tickets. I think they should have refunded the fines for those of us who got these stupid tickets. Mine was for not coming to complete stop before turning on red. I stopped, but not long enough. It was a $350 ticket and I had to go to 8 hours of traffic school on a Saturday. Just ridiculous.

    The company refused to take them down after we voted them out. The city isn't willing to pay for their removal, so they're just sitting around. I hate Arizona. If I didn't have a pension here, I'd have left years ago.
  • DuneClimber: What an oddly old fashioned website.


    welcome to fark dot jpeg
  • Russ1642: What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.


    Your naive if you think the state hasn't sold your information..many, many times.
  • wildlifer: Russ1642: What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.

    Your naive if you think the state hasn't sold your information..many, many times.


    Doesn't make it legal. There was a city councillor who sued the province back in the day for selling his information to a private parking lot company so they could send him a ticket. Can't remember how it all turned out.
  • Mikey1969: The municipality contracts with the ticket company. If there isn't a minimum amount of revenue, the municipality pays a penalty.


    This is compounded in the cases where there has to be a sworn law enforcement officer from the municipality that reviews all the footage and approves issuing the tickets. They are on payroll of the municipality and have the pressure that if they don't approve issuing enough tickets the municipality has to pay a penalty to the ticket camera company. Talk about ethical conflicts.
  • Russ1642: wildlifer: Russ1642: What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.

    Your naive if you think the state hasn't sold your information..many, many times.

    Doesn't make it legal. There was a city councillor who sued the province back in the day for selling his information to a private parking lot company so they could send him a ticket. Can't remember how it all turned out.


    What law makes it illegal?
  • Load 8 of 8 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.


Close