Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acusensus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Acusensus

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks sources meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Keep This company has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent sources sufficient to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold, as follows:  This academic work in the domain of public policy uses Acusensus's trial in NSW as a case study. It provides an in-depth description of the company's product, and the trial is used as an example for analysis of the relationship between private technology companies and regulatory agencies. The article notes: "The digital surveillance system has been developed and deployed by a private technology firm contracted by the state transport and regulation agency (https://www.acusensus.com/). The regulatory aim of the service is to enforce road rules by monitoring and detecting illegal phone use. The policy goal is to encourage behavioral change and reduce the prevalence of distracted driving and consequently improve road safety... The surveillance system uses digital cameras and a radar-based sensor system to visually detect illegal phone use in vehicles, taking high-quality and court admissible digital images of the offending behavior. The digital technology has the capacity to function 24/7 in all weather conditions providing a comprehensive monitoring system. In terms of system operation, digital images of suspected illegal behavior are collected and processed by automatic analysis software."  This news article reports on scrutiny Acusensus received from the NSW Privacy Commissioner. It is similar to one of the "Examples of substantial coverage" from WP:NCORP, namely A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product (in this case "privacy" replaces "safety"). The article notes: "A trial of "world-first technology" that snapped photos of every driver who passed cameras on two Sydney roads, irrespective of whether they were in the wrong, has raised concerns from the state's Privacy Commissioner, internal government documents show. The state's transport agency hired technology firm Acusensus for a three-month pilot early this year, which was aimed at photographing drivers who were illegally using mobile phones near the M4 motorway at Prospect, and Anzac Parade at Moore Park. The high-tech system captured images of all passing drivers and number plates, which in the first 25 days of the trial amounted to 2.1 million vehicles. About 10 per cent of all "sightings" in January were sent for "human pre-verification" by staff at Acusensus, internal documents released to Nine News under freedom of information laws show."  This news article reports on Acusensus's business activities in Canada, demonstrating that the audience for news about the company is not limited to Australia. It contains analysis and quotations from a Canadian privacy expert and a government official. The article notes: "But experts are warning the technology poses privacy concerns and would likely face court challenges in Canada. "I think for sure there's going to be a public outcry in whatever jurisdictions in Canada that introduce the technology," said Tom Sides, an Edmonton-based lawyer specializing in technology and privacy issues... Bob Hassel, senior speed management coordinator with Edmonton's office of traffic safety, says the city is always looking for new technology to help move towards its Vision Zero goal. "We have detection methods that we've seen here at this conference for things like distracted driving that I think are really leading and cutting edge that at some point would be really worthwhile in looking into," he said." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Acusensus to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Jfire (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC) 
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jfire. Cabrils (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of sources are available from secondary sources, independent from the subject which are reliable and provide significant coverage. (See the following: Business News Australia, AFR, IT Brief). - GA Melbourne (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.