Comment by zrobotics
6 years ago
"Droogie contacted the DMV who told him to change his plate. He refused because he didn't do anything wrong. While they wiped the fines off his record, unfortunately for him, they didn't fix the problem in the system so once again, Droogie has accrued another $6,000 in tickets"
So wait, after he knew this was the outcome from using this plate he just decided 'nope, the DMV will definitely rectify this error'? Maybe he has a much higher tolerance for dealing with the DMV than I do, but surely there are far more productive ways to spend your time than constantly battling against invalid tickets. Additionally, I would be concerned about not being able to waive some of these tickets at some point and actually having to pay them,6k isn't exactly an insignificant amount and could also really impact insurance rates.
Its a matter of principle though. Droogie hasn't done anything wrong, and is receiving fines due to errors made by the DMV.
You're right that when faced with a choice between acting on principle vs acting pragmatically/for one's own benefit/convenience/need, people often don't have the luxury of (or patience for) choosing the former. But it's nice to see when someone does.
> Droogie hasn't done anything wrong
That's arguable, actually. The article states, but doesn't provide evidence, that Droogie "hoped it might confuse automatic license plate readers or the DMV's ticketing system".
If this was done in an attempt to evade enforcement of existing laws, then sorry: that's a crime, folks. You aren't allowed to pen test live systems!
Is the punishment for that crime loads of unrelated parking tickets?
That's a weird legal system going on over there.
Fair, it could be argued. As you said in a deeper comment though, it would take an enterprising prosecutor (though they're hardly scarce) .
Within reason though, he hasn't technically done anything to warrant tickets.
Why would that be a crime? Intent is irrelevant. The crime is that the DMV is running shit code that is wrongly accusing people of crimes.
1 reply →
TBH it's a very silly principle to fight for: "I DEMAND YOU HAVE NO BUGS!" And the DMV could just as well argue "Sorry, the bug is that we never should have accepted your NULL plate application in the first place, so we'll send you a non-vanity plate".
I agree with the outcome of your premise to some degree. But he did do nothing against their stated policies regarding vanity plates. They issued him the palte. I am of the opinion that if they have a flaw in their code, it is on them to fix it, not the 'customer' to change their situation after the fact...
He's not demanding they have no bugs, he's merely refusing to provide a workaround for their bugs at his own expense and inconvenience (sure refusing to may actually involve other greater expense and inconvenience but that's beside the point).
The suggestion in the latter half of your comment is notable in that that's not what they said or offered. They don't even seem to have offered any recompense, which could at least be seen as a reasonable middleground (though still a compromise for Droogie who is denied his vanity plate post facto)
If it got to that point, I’m sure some tech savvy lawyer would have fun with these cases.