Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Newspaper)   Ticket camera company leaders promise gold mine of revenue, forgetting to tell investors that people can throw their tickets in the trash with no consequence   (thenewspaper.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Class action, Plaintiff, Rekor Systems, automated insurance camera citation program, Lawyer, Trial lawyers, Automatic number plate recognition, Stock  
•       •       •

1714 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Jul 2021 at 11:35 AM (4 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



33 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
4 days ago  
But it's for safety, not revenue generation!  These programs should be considered entrapment.
 
4 days ago  
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!
 
4 days ago  
If you have to keep changing the name of your company, you may not be on the up-and-up.
 
4 days ago  
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.
 
4 days ago  
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.
 
4 days ago  
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.
 
4 days ago  
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/
 
4 days ago  

RI_Red: for $afety, of course.


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

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!
 
4 days ago  
"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.
 
4 days ago  

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."
 
4 days ago  
What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.
 
4 days ago  
What an oddly old fashioned website.
 
4 days ago  

Russ1642: What you do is sue the state for giving that company your private information without consent.


Under what law?
 
4 days ago  
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.
 
4 days ago  

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.
 
4 days ago  

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
 
4 days ago  

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.
 
4 days ago  
This is a popular trend in the UK, just saying.

aftermathnews.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
4 days ago  

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.
 
4 days ago  

DuneClimber: What an oddly old fashioned website.


welcome to fark dot jpeg
 
3 days ago  

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.
 
3 days ago  

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.
 
3 days ago  

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.
 
3 days ago  

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?
 
3 days ago  

lizyrd: 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.


Why limit the program to those without insurance?  Because the majority will be poor hourly wage workers who can't fight the tickets in court.
If the cameras are there, then use them for speeding, registration, and inspections violations as well.  Also can be used to track vehicles for criminal investigations and car theft.
But we can't have that in the USA because the for profit companies will deliberately mis-calibrate the sensors and demand concessions on appeals, sell data to 3rd parties like Palantir.
 
3 days ago  

lizyrd: 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!"


Does the camera capture a photo of who was driving the car? Because where I live, citations for driving without insurance have to be issued to the driver of he vehicle.
 
3 days ago  
This may be going a little off topic, but I kind of wonder what has been happening to municipalities that relied heavily on ticketing as a revenue source.  My generation grew up learning which towns were notorious speed traps and to avoid them, even if going around added an extra 10 minutes to your drive.  Some of those places I swear built 50% of their budget on tickets.

But, with Covid shutting down driving for a year, I wonder what these towns did to fill the gap.  I'm assuming most of them resorted to some really shady civil forfeiture shiat.
 
3 days ago  

xxdangerbobxx: 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?


Oh FFS. You can't make a simple point around here without someone expecting you to be the world's leading expert on the subject. Go look it up yourself.
 
3 days ago  

Russ1642: xxdangerbobxx: 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?

Oh FFS. You can't make a simple point around here without someone expecting you to be the world's leading expert on the subject. Go look it up yourself.


Impossible, there is no such law. That was the point
 
3 days ago  

xxdangerbobxx: Russ1642: xxdangerbobxx: 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?

Oh FFS. You can't make a simple point around here without someone expecting you to be the world's leading expert on the subject. Go look it up yourself.

Impossible, there is no such law. That was the point


It really depends on the state or province, but yes, the government doesn't necessarily have the right to hand over any and/or all of the personal information in collects on its citizens to whoever it wants. But go on about there having to be a single 'law' for it, with a catchy acronym to make it easy for you.
 
3 days ago  

Russ1642: xxdangerbobxx: Russ1642: xxdangerbobxx: 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?

Oh FFS. You can't make a simple point around here without someone expecting you to be the world's leading expert on the subject. Go look it up yourself.

Impossible, there is no such law. That was the point

It really depends on the state or province, but yes, the government doesn't necessarily have the right to hand over any and/or all of the personal information in collects on its citizens to whoever it wants. But go on about there having to be a single 'law' for it, with a catchy acronym to make it easy for you.


For things to be illegal there need to be laws saying it's so. If you think there is one by all means say which one.

Otherwise you're just making noise
 
2 days ago  

mrmopar5287: lizyrd: 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!"

Does the camera capture a photo of who was driving the car? Because where I live, citations for driving without insurance have to be issued to the driver of he vehicle.


I think it's much easier to argue that it's the owner's reaponsibility regardless of who is driving:  if i let my insurance lapse but then let you borrow my car, that's on me. I've allowed a vehicle i own and i alone am responsible for insuring to be driven. If i lend you my car and then you decide to speed and run red lights, that's on you. I'm not responsible for your driving habits (though i'd probably not lend you my car ever again)
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.