Whee, lets have more accidents at the expense of falsely implying there's an actual safety interest! In other words, "this is for your own safety, pay up!"
Red light cameras increasing the frequency of accidents (as has been cited with empirical data frequently) doesn't mean this is an improvement overall. Less tbones, yes - but a system of improving safety? Not at all. They do increase motorist cost, though!
Real method of improving safety? Make yellow lights longer.
It's really not any more complicated than that. Of course, then the city can't give away money to redflex/new red light camera company who is easily just as corrupt.
Note the very specific wording : "we are bound by net neutrality". Not "We follow/will follow net neutrality". It's even more explicit that they will not follow it unless they have to, dragged kicking and screaming.
I just need to find a way to script the downloading of the images and then I'll put them up somewhere else with explicit CC0. If these guys are too stupid to realize it is not my fault, issue or concern.
It gets slightly better. This is probably the worst possible time to have done exactly that - being caught red handed right as the judge is wising up to the BS that they've been pulling. While FISC may be a rubber stamp in general, I have a feeling they are not toothless.
Our US judicial system is mostly clueless. They think google is evil and show little to zero technical aptitude or understanding of what is happening.
How many judiciaries have actually understood the technology at large for 2014? This can probably be counted with both hands, even if we're including the part of scotus that vaguely understands technology.