The bill, in fact, legalized the federal mobile application, similar in functionality to the assistant of the capital in Moscow. Unofficially, the global “assistant” was called the “People’s Inspector”. It was believed that anyone could install it on their gadgets and solve various traffic violations. And on the basis of this photo and video recording material, the traffic police will issue fines. But apparently there were more questions about this idea than the expected benefits of implementing it.

– There are still unresolved questions about the procedure for capturing, processing and transmitting information, which in practice can lead to the emergence of disputes and violation of citizens’ procedural rights. Further work on the bill does not seem relevant, – says the conclusion on the refusal to consider the bill.

Probably, we are talking about claims similar to those made by lawyers against the “Moscow assistant”. The main one is that the camera works without human intervention when automatically recording violations. And in the case of “Moscow Assistant”, the recording takes place (or does not take place) exclusively at the behest of the “arbitrary” owner of the smartphone. In addition, the objectivity and accuracy of the work is not confirmed by regular verifications, as required by the procedure for operating all means of automatic resolution of traffic violations.

The bill, in fact, legalized the federal mobile application, similar in functionality to the assistant of the capital in Moscow. Unofficially, the global “assistant” was called the “People’s Inspector”. It was believed that anyone could install it on their gadgets and solve various traffic violations. And on the basis of this photo and video recording material, the traffic police will issue fines. But apparently there were more questions about this idea than the expected benefits of implementing it.

– There are still unresolved questions about the procedure for capturing, processing and transmitting information, which in practice can lead to the emergence of disputes and violation of citizens’ procedural rights. Further work on the bill does not seem relevant, – says the conclusion on the refusal to consider the bill.

Probably, we are talking about claims similar to those made by lawyers against the “Moscow assistant”. The main one is that the camera works without human intervention when automatically recording violations. And in the case of “Moscow Assistant”, the recording takes place (or does not take place) exclusively at the behest of the “arbitrary” owner of the smartphone. In addition, the objectivity and accuracy of the work is not confirmed by regular verifications, as required by the procedure for operating all means of automatic resolution of traffic violations.