it kind of depends.

there have been big pushes against red light cameras and similar automated license-plate enforcement in the US. which is actually kind of a wash, when you consider the alternative is often the unequal manual policing instead.

in an older version of this, I know some places had and then removed the ability of tollbooths to cut speeding tickets. (It's pretty trivial to establish speeding if you get between two tollbooths faster than the speed limit would otherwise allow.)

Automated surveillance enforcement tends to bring the discrepancy between the law and the norms of behavior to light. The state prefers to forgo enforcement and keep the law rather than keep the enforcement and alter the law to reflect norms.

> in an older version of this, I know some places had and then removed the ability of tollbooths to cut speeding tickets. (It's pretty trivial to establish speeding if you get between two tollbooths faster than the speed limit would otherwise allow.)

Some countries took the opposite approach, and introduced lay-bys just before toll booths, enabling drivers to speed to their heart's content, and then have a rest before going through the next toll booth.

That pretty much makes no sense as an analogy. People opposed to speed cameras aren't advocating for spending more time and effort to write tickets, they're advocating for not getting tickets.

Really? You can't imagine a large populist movement rejecting a newly developed technology based on suspicions about some kind of sinister agenda?

It doesn't matter if lots of people, even most, pay with digital transactions. As long as a substantial minority is using cash, the option will be available for those who need it.