Yes - the companies selling the tickets need to have a financial stake in stopping the bots. Without a financial motive, the ticket sellers will continue to have crappy code. Currently, the incentives are all wrong. The ticket sellers sell tickets quickly and get all their fees under the current system. The bulk scalpers are good business for them, and they have no reason to stop them.
If anything, the ticket sellers should be required to have a system that prevents bulk scalping, with penalties for failing to do this.
... and I question the premise
And I would agree with that. As you point out, the situation is not analogous. My own thought is the OP is kind of getting ahead of him/herself. For autonomous cars to make an impact on insurance rates, you would have to have a significant portion of the vehicles be autonomous. Frankly, I can't see that happening for many years, as only a small portion of drivers can afford to go out and buy a brand new car. For buyers of used cars, it will be a long time before they can get their hands on an autonomous car. Doing a quick google for just the US, 2014 new car sales were on the order of 16 million cars. Used car sales were on the order of 41 million, about 2.5 times as many a year. Say new car owners kept their cars three years (arbitrary number) - it would be almost six years before enough cars were traded in for one year of used car sales. According to google, there are 254 million used cars in the US. Assuming six years before used cars start getting replaced, six years of new cars would be 96 million cars replaced, leaving 158 million to be replaced still. From that point figure 57 million get replaced every year, it would be another almost 5 years until all the cars are replaced. That's 9 years for what I would call a best case. I think it will likely be much longer than that, since a large number of used car buyers are buying cars more than three years old (so they'd have to wait that much longer before getting their hands on an autonomous car).
1. Dash cams are fixed and (usually) only see what is happening in front of the police car, which is normally on a public right-of-way and therefore where the public could also observe and record*. What happens elsewhere, like when an officer goes inside a private residence, isn't captured by dash cams. A body cam on the other hand would frequently be recording events that are not occurring where the public can see, and this is a significant difference for accountability.
This is the aspect that worries me. Privacy goes out the window with body cams. Anyone close to the "suspect" can get caught up in the same video, whether they have anything to do with it or not. As the parent points out, dash cams are used in public places; but body cams would be able to go into private places.
We know how well governmental bodies do with protecting private data (that is to say: poorly); imagine someone stealing a video about a controversial event, and there's your face in the video. You can get implicated by association, even though you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you think your boss would be happy? Or your spouse?
This is even worse if you are a public person, where there would be even more of an incentive to steal the videos.
"Maintain an awareness for contribution -- to your schedule, your project, our company." -- A Group of Employees