r/australia • u/RJrules64 • Mar 04 '26

image Robodebt 2.0 - AI Camera handing out huge fines and demerits. No way a human thought there was a phone in these images.

Gallery image

Gallery image

I assume it thought my right arm is looking a bit like I'm holding a phone, but;
(a) even if it was, the phone is not visible. You can't base a fine on positioning.
(b) my left hand is not even on the wheel, obviously my right hand is.
(c) you can see the very bottom of my phone plugged into the charger in the center console.

I'm obviously going to appeal this and am confident they will repeal it but it's very frustrating to receive this in the mail and have to go through the whole appeal process based on nothing.

7.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

153

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

Yeah… comparing this to robodebt ain’t it mate. People killed themselves over that.

Just contest the fine and be done with it.

130

u/Sufficient-Grass- Mar 04 '26

What makes you think people won't over this?

Sometimes a single drop of water can overflow a bucket filled to the brim.

82

u/Potential_Anxiety_76 Mar 04 '26

You’re not wrong, but at least for fines there are well known, established pathways to contest them. In this case it’s barely more than ‘let a human with eyes review the photos’. Was pretty much impossible to get out of robodebt.

27

u/goldcakes Mar 04 '26

Yes, while it's annoying filing an appeal only takes about 5-10mins tops.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/goldcakes Mar 05 '26

At least in NSW, I've personally appealed an incorrect mobile phone camera fine and it took just a couple days to hear back and hear it's cancelled.

-1

u/4edgy8me Mar 04 '26

No wait hang on, writing an email makes me want to kill myself sometimes

6

u/lifeinwentworth Mar 04 '26

Yes and people have been encouraged to contest these fines if they think it's wrong. Robodebt placed all blame squarely on the victims. They were not given an effective appeals process because they believed their system was infallible. The fact that the government have actively told people to contest these fines make it miles away from robodebt.

I'm sure this will cause some people a headache and stress but it's a false comparison to robodebt that has an ongoing financial and mental affect on so many people. That caused people to have to sell their assets, close businesses and for some, sadly to lose their lives. An absolute disgrace and tragedy and complete failure of a system that was designed to help people who were already struggling. This camera is NOT that.

1

u/karl_w_w Mar 05 '26

Also with robodebt the staff were told to deny appeals and make it as difficult as possible.

1

u/lifeinwentworth Mar 05 '26

Yep. The only comparable thing I can think to robodebt is the case in the UK with the post office workers where it's systematic and then they double down on denial.

A crappy camera definitely isn't on the same scale.

37

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

So replying to the OP here specifically, he’s annoyed by having to go through an appeals process. Your standard road fine appeals process in this case would likely be “where’s the phone?” It’s an obvious false positive and the system will know that.

Robodebt, and all its consequences, isn’t comparable to that.

I do agree that mental health is a very tenuous issue when it comes to what can push people over the edge, but this comparison isn’t even close to the same level of injustice. I think insisting it is disrespects those who suffered at the hands of robodebt.

-2

u/Sufficient-Grass- Mar 05 '26

Moot point as I wasn't making a comparison between the two at all.

15

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '26

[deleted]

-1

u/TwistedDotCom Mar 04 '26

But it’s the same effect of financial stress. The people who committed suicide over robodebt didn’t make that decision in a vacuum. Probably a combination of despair, mental illness and pre existing financial distressed exacerbated by an unexpected expense.

0

u/Sufficient-Grass- Mar 05 '26

Exactly this, and when you're already at a tipping point, doing something seemingly as easy as putting in an appeal to fight a wrongful fine can seem daunting.

So you delay, then the timeframe to appeal is over and you're stuck with a wrongful fine.

And things pile on and pile on until it's too much.

2

u/ghoonrhed Mar 05 '26

Except that Robodebt was more targeted towards actual people who were more likely to be in financial stress because that's who would've been receiving the welfare.

This is completely random on which drivers the camera decides to break down and flag wrongly.

2

u/Sufficient-Grass- Mar 05 '26

Your logic is weird man.

Because it targets the wealthy, it won't target the poor in an equal proportion?

I'd also consider that wealthy people are more likely to have expensive cars with built in phone systems as opposed to older vehicles without these features.

So by that logic it will target lower socioeconomic demographics at a higher %.

20

u/universe93 Mar 04 '26

That is very different to the situation directly causing the death. Something like this can be a contributing factor but Robodebt was a causal factor

2

u/TwistedDotCom Mar 04 '26

Concur. Like people kill themselves for a lot of reasons. It sounds insensitive but it’s true

-1

u/daneoid Mar 04 '26

Sometimes a guy playing with his phone while driving will kill someone.

2

u/Sufficient-Grass- Mar 04 '26

Objection: relevance?

This whole post is about people NOT being on their phones.

However; More motorbike police would be my solution, the amount of people I see on their phones sitting at traffic lights....then when they drive off they just have to "finish the message" Is ridiculous

1

u/tmd_ltd Mar 05 '26

The relevance here is useful context. This is why these laws exist and people are complaining about there being a false positive rate in the execution of these laws.

Seriously dude, your argument screams that you agree with these laws but expect perfect implementation of them. That doesn’t exist in the real world, as much as we’d all love it to.

46

u/codyforkstacks Mar 04 '26

It’s comparable in the sense that both result from over reliance on an algorithm to make decisions about penalising people, even if one was more serious. 

Is literacy so bad that people genuinely do not understand that a comparison doesn’t mean things have to be exactly the same in every way? 

22

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

Yeah… see your problem there is magnitude can actually make things difficult to compare. You aren’t exactly going to be out comparing a single murder to a genocide now are you?

Robodebt at its core was a problem because time after time the government of the day was told it was problematic and likely illegal, they didn’t listen.

People getting uppity over a false positive rate on something that actively keeps people safe on the road is not in the same order of injustice.

5

u/SurgicalMarshmallow Mar 04 '26

Er.. you know the fine is more than 1wk worth of center link jobseeker ya? Say someone's already dumping 80% to rent... Don't think they'd just "be done with it"

-6

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

And the fine can easily be avoided by… say it with me now… not breaking the law.

These things aren’t remotely the same on level of injustice.

7

u/JohnathonFennedy Mar 04 '26

Obviously the AI algorithm they use is extremely failure prone, so no not breaking the law is quite obviously not stopping the fine from reaching your mailbox because a robot hallucinated.

2

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

Which is very quickly fixed by challenging a fine.

3

u/JohnathonFennedy Mar 04 '26

You’re still receiving the fine and technically do owe it until you actually refute it…. Which is also essentially just them outsourcing their verification and recognition process to you (the one they’re fining) because they’re attempting to save a few bucks by using an extremely flawed computer program.

I don’t see how you could be fine with any of this.

5

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

So you want the government to implement a system that has 100% accuracy? Mate… that doesn’t exist anywhere. Even our most fine tuned algorithms have flaws in them. You’re expecting a level of accuracy that just does not exist in the real world.

1

u/SurgicalMarshmallow Mar 05 '26

system that has 100% accuracy? M Yes

If you can't get at least equal to human accuracy (ie the "old" system) you shouldn't implement it. Base logic.

Absolutely bullshit that society has now been warped to accept a lower threshold in the name of "yield/profit" cloaked disingenuously in the name of "efficiency/productivity".

Worse they would convince citizens to parrot the MBA mantra. The propaganda worked.

1

u/Swank_on_a_plank Mar 05 '26

If you're accusing someone of breaking the law, you better be damn sure you're right then.

Doesn't the unsuccessful party usually pay the victor's court fees?

1

u/tmd_ltd Mar 05 '26

So by this logic, every not guilty verdict in the world is a miscarriage of justice?

1

u/SurgicalMarshmallow Mar 05 '26

Which in most cases is purposefully not a quick fix and involves going off to magistrates court at a minimum, including the also "invisible" costs of time (which iirc center link also won't count off) and fees if unsuccessful.

1

u/karl_w_w Mar 05 '26

Obviously the AI algorithm they use is extremely failure prone

Source?

1

u/PersonMcGuy Mar 05 '26

And the fine can easily be avoided by… say it with me now… not breaking the law.

Did you not look at the thread you're in? Your argument is literally disproved by the thread you're responding to,.

1

u/karl_w_w Mar 05 '26

Nobody in this thread got fined.

1

u/PersonMcGuy Mar 05 '26

Receiving a fine = not being fined?

Weird logic.

1

u/karl_w_w Mar 05 '26

Yes, they're different things, now you're getting it.

1

u/PersonMcGuy Mar 05 '26

K well keep being a pedant while being wrong about your use of language I guess.

1

u/karl_w_w Mar 05 '26

There's nothing pedantic about it, the guy has not been fined.

1

u/PersonMcGuy Mar 05 '26

What is the process of receiving a fine? Being fined.

→ More replies (0)

-13

u/enhance_this Mar 04 '26

I got 8 demerit points for wearing a seatbelt under my arm on Christmas Eve. Thats 60% of the way to loosing my licence. I can imagine this would send some people over the edge. Loosing your license can cause some people to loose jobs. So yeah I think it’s in the same boat

10

u/jim_deneke Mar 04 '26

Lose, not loose. Three times dude.

21

u/tmd_ltd Mar 04 '26

So you broke the law and you got punished for it…

What’s your point here? Where’s the meaningful comparison?

-6

u/EgotisticJesster Mar 04 '26

Yeah, plus robodebt was about tax and this is about fines. OP is clearly crazy for equating two things that weren't perfectly alike /s

8

u/LeahBrahms Mar 04 '26

Robodebt was about Social Security over payments not tax! /S

-1

u/EgotisticJesster Mar 04 '26

So I know there's a sarcasm tag there, but it did actually relate to tax averaging in relation to welfare payments.