fsck, event 3 minutes is too long: it's long enough for some automated system to issue a speeding ticket and the abuse is done (letting aside the possiblity of having NSA prisming it forever... given the times we live in, one cannot rule this out).
I move to delete them as soon as the are captured... heck, why waste money to install these cameras in the first place? Aren't any other better means to ensure traffic safety?
(grin... I know, stupid... but less stupid than the code I am to write now)
Damn, I am going to feed the AC troll. But I cannot resist...
If the pictures are deleted as soon as a citation is issued, there is no evidence to support or assist in refuting the citation. Or would you like to live in a world where the Police can say "the photographic evidence existed to charge this person with murder, treason, speeding, bestiality and voting Democrat, but he posted as a dipshit AC on
Remember, photographic evidence can be a tool to prove both guilt and innocence.
Additionally, destroying evidence that was used as the basis for a citation is itself a criminal offence.
If a picture is taken by one of a network of cameras, and analysis confirms that it does not provide evidence of a specific and currently investigated crime crime, then it should be deleted immediately (no need to wait for 3 minutes, because that is enough time for the picture to be "archived for disaster recovery purposes". But if the picture shows evidence of a potential crime, then it should be kept at least until that crime has been investigated and charges brought/dismissed....
However, my own problem with my argument is ironically the "if the picture shows evidence of a potential crime" part - does anyone seriously want to claim that they know all the laws of whatever country they live in, and how those laws are interpreted by the police and judicial system? Given that the laws of any non-autocratic state become more complex over time (I cannot provide a citation for that, but I do recall reading it in an ex-girlfriend's Poli Sci course book while helping her study for an exam, but it is an echo of some commentaries by Voltaire and even Macchiavelli), it becomes inevitable that over time laws are less about the meaning and intention of the original legislators and more about interpretation by judicial authority, especially when those laws are seeming written to be very obtuse, unclear and overly broad. So the "evidence of a potential crime" angle is itself open to abuse.
The bottom line is that people in positions of authority cannot and should not be trusted to refrain from abusing their authority. The buffer against that abuse is an independent and transparent review process for all levels of the decision-making process, with the penalties for circumventing the review process being punitive and rigorously applied. Does anyone feel comfortable that this review process is working?