Fox's Bret Baier Reports Instant Phone Tickets for Jaywalking in China

Bret Baier stunned viewers from Beijing with his Special Report team's coverage of China's surveillance state. Cameras there catch jaywalking or riding a scooter without a helmet and send tickets to phones almost instantly. Baier's own driver got one for parking illegally for just a couple of minutes.

This raises questions for Americans. The U.S. government has the capability and most of the equipment to enforce laws that aggressively. American society offers unofficial leeway on such matters. New York City skips tickets for double parking during street cleaning, though it's illegal. Drivers on I-95 go at least five to 15 miles above the speed limit. Most U.S. cities tolerate jaywalking.

This relaxed approach to nonviolent, nonfelony laws explains why states keep odd old statutes on the books without enforcement. Delaware bans selling pet fur. Massachusetts deems swearing at sporting events a minor crime. Minnesota prohibits using a greased pig in a contest. Nobody repeals them because enforcement stopped.

What changes if every new law pairs with AI surveillance that detects nearly every violation? Cultural differences play a role. In Tokyo in 2019, dozens waited at a crosswalk on a straight one-lane street, even before phone tickets existed. A rule is a rule for the Japanese.

U.S. surveillance growth could shift American culture toward rigid order at the cost of freedoms. The nation's disdain for authority and tolerance for minor breaches act like a fourth branch of government when people ignore silly laws. During COVID lockdowns, millions defied restrictions despite calls for Chinese-style compliance.

Devices, TVs, Ring cameras and state surveillance provide the tools. The government has not used them for control so far but could switch anytime. The debate centers on how much leeway to give the state for surveillance and punishment of minor laws. Black's Law Dictionary lacks a definition for wiggle room.

Do Americans want human cops issuing warnings or machines enforcing every letter of the law? They seem to prefer the former. Protecting that preference poses a challenge.