Slashdot Mirror


California Tracks Everyone Using Toll Transponders

obtuse writes "Direct monitoring of traffic sounds pretty cool, but some people don't want their toll transponders tracked. They aren't installing direct driver tracking for law enforcement now, but the collected data could be subpoenaed. Of course, anyone who didn't want to be tracked could just put it in the glovebox anyway, so they won't be catching clever felons or tracking real paranoiacs."

408 comments

  1. Here's a tip to avoid this by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 1, Funny

    Walk

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
    1. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Whafro · · Score: 1

      knowing ebay and its users, far too much...

    2. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by WetCat · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, I chose to walk to work today!

    3. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by thomasdelbert · · Score: 1

      But what about my phone? I'm naked without it!

      --
      ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
    4. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How much did you pay for yours?

      --
      Je t'aime Stéphanie
    5. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bike.

    6. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      Another possibility for those too far from the office to not drive: Don't use the FRIGGIN toll transponders! Sure, it may take a minute longer to drive to work, but that's why there are people in the booths. If you're that worried about your high-speed drive to work, don't use 'em!

      --
      Emotional Attachment Failure In Progress. Do you care?

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    7. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it takes a lot longer than a minute to wait in line with everyone who doesn't have a transponder.

    8. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by zemkai · · Score: 1

      Or, as the post says, just toss it in the glove box. I spent an awful lot of time in cabs in NY last year, and it seemed every driver did that... coming up to the booth? Pull it out and wave it near the windshield. Then back in the glove box it went.
      -ZK-

    9. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original point was this - if you have one and do something "evil" and don't want to be tracked, just throw the thing in the glovebox and pay toll with cash.

    10. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is another reason why I hate driving in so.cal.

      deeply concerned,
      -orenthal james simpson

    11. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People take it out of their car and hold it over the windshield because it often doesn't work, especially in certain cars it can't pick it up through the windshield for some reason. If you hold it outside it has a better chance of working.

    12. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No need to walk. Just become a Toll Booth Ninja.

    13. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by EboMike · · Score: 1

      Another possibility for those too far from the office to not drive: Don't use the FRIGGIN toll transponders!

      Well, the Express Lanes on I-15 in California require FasTrak. Granted, Express Lanes are luxury and not a de-facto "unavoidable route" like the Golden Gate Bridge, but I smell a new trend coming...

    14. Re:Here's a tip to avoid this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring on those mylar bags!

  2. That's it by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1

    I'm going to line the inside of my wallet with tinfoil. I don't actually know what the people who manufactured all the plastic cards in there embedded in them.

    1. Re:That's it by darkfrog · · Score: 1

      My stupid plastic cards won't even get accepted by a magnetic reader, let along do I think they put enough effort into something that could actually be tracked...

      or maybe they just put all their money into developing a tracking system and then put on a magnetic strip that gets destroyed within weeks to save them money!

      --
      --DarkFrog
      If the dead rise again, we're going to have some serious population control issues.
    2. Re:That's it by thomasdelbert · · Score: 1

      I tried making a tin foil helmet once. Didn't work. The voices still found me.

      --
      ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
    3. Re:That's it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could easily track you anytime you actually use your plastic anyway. For that matter, they could track you using the metallic stripe in your bills as well.

      The only solution: barter!

  3. I propose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a separate European tracking network that does not accept any US "vehicle" such as those damn SUVs or other aluminium cases on wheels.

    1. Re:I propose by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 2
      a separate European tracking network that does not accept any US "vehicle" such as those damn SUVs or other aluminium cases on wheels.

      what the ... my Coca-cola aluminum can mobile would become totally useless!!! Down with the EU!!!!!!

  4. Creepy man, creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creepy

  5. I can live with that. by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't have a big problem with toll records being accessible in criminal cases (aka, by subpeona). Many criminals *are* stupid, so if this helps catch them then I'm happy. Besides, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a bridge (which is why I try to keep the nose-picking to a minimum).

    What I worry about it that leading to civil uses -- what if my wife's lawyer got records showing I was sneaking over the Golden Gate to visit my mistress (expensive booty call with the new tolls, BTW).

    I wish there were some reasonable way to insure against a slippery slope. I would prefer to live in a country where it's easy to catch criminals without sliding into surveilling lawful citizens.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:I can live with that. by unDiWahn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So don't cheat on your wife!

      Why are the examples of why _not_ to have these things always immoral?

      You just want to shirk responsibility...

      It seems silly to have a right to be an asshole.
      You can be an asshole, but you have to deal with those consequences.

    2. Re:I can live with that. by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      Okay, I could also have said that it was tracking me going to anti-war demonstrations or to heckle Dick Cheney while he's in town.

      Of course, those things are legal and are free from civil problems.

      Cheating on my wife, while legal, could lead to problems in a divorce case (although I think CA's a no-fault state). It's the easiest example I could come up with. If you have a better one, then by all means let's hear it.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's his point. There AREN'T simple, moral, good reasons to oppose things like this.

    4. Re:I can live with that. by jflash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      **snip**
      Besides, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a bridge (which is why I try to keep the nose-picking to a minimum).

      Call me crazy, but I expect privacy while in my car. I don't expect to have to buy expensive counter-surveillance equipment (or use a mylar bag) to protect my privacy. I don't want even aggregate data about my whereabouts or preferences being known. Not because I have anything to hide, but because I don't.
      ref: The Fourth Amendment

    5. Re:I can live with that. by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

      OK, your crazy, a ferakin loon.

      You sit in a small box with lots of windows on a public street and expect privacy?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, here's one. I'm being abused by my spouse, who's a cop and has access to the database. I'm sneaking over the bridge while he's at work to visit my sister, who's helping me plan a way to get out alive and with minimal danger to my kids.

    7. Re:I can live with that. by Skyshadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you expect, then, is anonymity. There's a difference.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    8. Re:I can live with that. by Neil+Watson · · Score: 2
      Adultry is the application of democracy to love. Maybe he and his mistress were just exercising their democratic rights?

      I hope my wife isn't reading this :)

    9. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, I'm being stalked by an ex who's threatened my life. the restraining order doesn't work the day he decides to run me off the road.

    10. Re:I can live with that. by Oztun · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well since you posted with your nick and not AC hopefully no one reads this you know and later gets mad and points it out to your wife!

      Not that you said you did this but it does show how you think. This is a very greedy way to look at life. If your wife isn't enough for you, be a man and leave her. Find a woman who will let you be a ho or enjoy the single life. If you are running around I hope your wife is getting her fill of pleasure in return.

    11. Re:I can live with that. by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I expect the option of anonymity and privacy and identity and freedom etc.

      It's all about choice and freedom. If I want to be anonymous in a so-called "free" country I should. If I want privacy I should be entitled to that as well. As well as anything else that I damn well please as long as it's within the scope of myself and no one else.

      Should no one be allowed these things?

      Wether I'm actually going to make use of them or not if irrelevant. As long as they're available to me then that's all that matters.

      --
      Garett

    12. Re:I can live with that. by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      I try to stay away from extreme examples like "someone could use it to kill his wife! AND KIDS! For the love of God, think about the CHILDREN!". They're unrealistic and appeal mostly to the Jerry Springer sect of society.

      After all, if he was a cop, he'd need to get a subpoena to get at the information. It'd be much easier just to put out an APB on her car. As such, it's not really a realistic potential problem and not a good counterargument.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    13. Re:I can live with that. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Here's a hint then privacy-boy, don't put a transmitter designed to track you on your windshield, and instead of paying automatically use coins. It's impossible to be anonymous when you have a transmitter with a unique id stuck to your car.

      If you really want to be anonymous walk to work, preferably with a bag over your head.

    14. Re:I can live with that. by Moonshadow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Legally, your car is a public place. Your trunk is not. There's a reason you can't drive around naked - it's in public, so you can get arrested for indecent exposure. Therefore, you can have the same expectation of privacy that you would have if you were in the mall, or walking, or whatever.

      That is, unless you're in the trunk, which you probably don't want to be anyway.

    15. Re:I can live with that. by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      Should no one be allowed these things?

      Well, no, not in the case you're bringing up.

      By your logic, I should be able to tint all my windows to 95% and drive around without license plates. Of course, I can't do that for obvious reasons.

      You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. That's why they call it "in public". If you want privacy, stay in your house and out of areas in plain view of public places -- then you have a leg to stand on.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    16. Re:I can live with that. by Skyshadow · · Score: 1

      Er, dude, it's what we call "an example". I'm not actually married.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    17. Re:I can live with that. by jgerman · · Score: 2

      In this particular case that's a judgement call. What you call immoral I may not (I do in this case). Or he may not. Don't expect everyone to uphold your ethical standards.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    18. Re:I can live with that. by Oztun · · Score: 2

      Bad example. IMHO it is an example of an asshole who deserves what he gets. Maybe if someone else poses a good example I will understand.

      As for war demos. or protesting Cheney, people shouldn't do things in public they don't want everyone to know about. This is something I accepted a long time ago.

    19. Re:I can live with that. by mrclmn · · Score: 2



      without sliding into surveilling lawful citizens

      Shouldn't that be in the past tense? Given the current state of things.

    20. Re:I can live with that. by unicron · · Score: 2

      Perhaps it's time he considered the financially and health ramifications of two broads simultaneously.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    21. Re:I can live with that. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      I wish there were some reasonable way to insure against a slippery slope.

      Can't--some people are evil, and will use whatever they can get their hands on to achieve their ends. If that includes collected data, they'll use that. The slippery slope is just some opening to some method for evil people to get what they want (typically: power). The answer: an armed populace that is willing to revolt if pushed too far.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    22. Re:I can live with that. by jackb_guppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are mixing two types of Public.

      One my car is NOT Public place. I own my car and its contents. What I contain in my car is my business, where I take my car is my business.

      My car can be viewed by the Public. There is no illusion that I can see out and you can not see in. In a limo with tinted windows, that another story. :-)

      The police are allowed to look at a car see what is visible. In your example: your nake body and atrest you for "not being dressed". They can arrest in your home of the same reason, if they could see you in the window.

    23. Re:I can live with that. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      If you don't believe that what you are doing is not immoral, then why hide? Even accounting for the various differences in people's beliefs ethical behavior can basically be defined as the stuff you would do even if you knew you were going to get caught. The second you start thinking about hiding your actions chances are good that what you are up to is unethical, illegal, or both.

    24. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason for anonymity is to avoid the consequences of doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

    25. Re:I can live with that. by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      Apparently, you can't expect privacy in your own home anymore either.

    26. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not actually married.

      Obviously.

    27. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up. +1 insightful

    28. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you wear clothing because?

    29. Re:I can live with that. by boomer_rehfield · · Score: 2, Funny

      "By your logic, I should be able to tint all my windows to 95% and drive around without license plates. Of course, I can't do that for obvious reasons."

      I gonna have to call bullshit. You've obviously never lived in Florida.

      --
      Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
    30. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The only reason for anonymity is to avoid the consequences of doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

      Absolutely right! For the next election, let's all raise our hands in public to vote. No more dangling chad!

    31. Re:I can live with that. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. That's why they call it "in public".

      You're making the assumption that both "privacy" and "being in public" are boolean values.

      If I'm standing on a streetcorner at 3a.m. talking to someone, and no one is around, I have an expectation of privcy. Not as much as if we were in my home, but more so that on the same corner at noon.

      When I'm driving my car about town, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that included that my movements are not being tracked, that the passenger compartment is not bugged, and so on. I don't have a reasonable expectation that a cop might not come up behind me and run my plates, jsut for jollies since he doesn't like the look of my bumper stickers, or that someone who knows me might not spot me.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    32. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's O.K. honey, I agree.
      BTW you're "working late" again tonight, right?
      Me and "the girls" are going out on the town. heh.

    33. Re:I can live with that. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Actually, your car is not your private property in the same way your house is. I remember a story a lawyer once told me, about a client he had who had shot a man who had broken into his car. The cop advised the guy, "next time" I guess, to drag the body to the door, since you have the right to shoot someone who invades your house... but not your car.

      We make decisions all the time, balancing convenience against other concerns. It is completely possible and reasonable to go through life without one of these transponders. Heck, in Southern California, we have all of maybe two toll roads, so it's a non-issue. But, if I valued my privacy more than my convenience, I could certainly opt to go through the toll booths the normal way.

      It's a lot like using a credit card vs. cash. Credit is easier, but there's a record, and you've given your identity to the person you're purchasing from. Cash preserves your anonymity. You have choices; you make them every day.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    34. Re:I can live with that. by DEBEDb · · Score: 1
      An Anonymous Coward writes:

      The only reason for anonymity is to avoid the consequences of doing something that you shouldn't be doing.
      .


      Priceless...

      --

      Considered harmful.
    35. Re:I can live with that. by Angus+McNitt · · Score: 1

      Um, yes and no. If they have to cross onto your property to see you dancing around naked singing show tunes, they are commiting trespass. They have to be able to see you easily from a public place, unaided (using a 10x spotting scope to peer through your blinds is verboten). So if your want to leave you blinds open, plant trees or a hedge. DO the planet a favor (in more ways than one).

      On the car issue, I can understand the expectation of some privacy in your car. But you have to observe a certain level of discression to get privacy. Just because I have papers sitting on my passenger seat at a stop light doesn't mean you can reach in and turn the page. But that "MR GEEK" license plate would have to go. It's like all those corporate anti-terror courses say, be discreet.

      --
      "To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
    36. Re:I can live with that. by quantaman · · Score: 2

      what if my wife's lawyer got records showing I was sneaking over the Golden Gate to visit my mistress

      Let's hope he doesn't read /. either :)

      --
      I stole this Sig
    37. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please. It's spotin' scope, not spotting scope. Ain't you ever bun huntin'?

    38. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A "reasonable expectation of privacy" is, in US law (where it is a technical term) anyway, Boolean. You either have one, or you don't.

      You, colloquially speaking, might expect that your convo at 0300 is private, in the sense that as far as you observe "nobody is listening". However, this expectation is, legally, not reasonable. If I happen to be in the shadows with a hand to my ear, you're toast and no matter how much you might whine, I can repeat what I heard you say, even in a courtroom.

      Whether it is noon or 0300, your expectation is either reasonable or not -- and if you are in a public place speaking above a whisper (where I might have to use a parabolic mic to pick up your potentially terrorist mutterings), you do not have one.

      IANAL, but who cares.

    39. Re:I can live with that. by dattaway · · Score: 2

      Legally, your car is a public place.

      Missouri highway patrolmen have often told me otherwise. They have told me that they don't care if a person is nekkid in a car, but if they step out of the car, THEN they are in a public place.

    40. Re:I can live with that. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Perhaps it's time he considered the financially and health ramifications of two broads simultaneously.

      If he's got 'em simultaneously, the broads obviously know each other and dig it.

      Financially, that means it's cheaper - Broad #1 can take Broad #2 out for a date.

      Health-wise, all that cardio-vascular stuff must be good for you. And you die with a shit-eating grin (and if you're real lucky, a shit-eating grin and one of the broads) on your face.

      Finally, unlike one broad, there's no way you can have two broads while driving. Just not enough room in the front seat. So there's no privacy implication from the cameras in the FastTrak lane if you go speeding through and your mylared transceiver blocks it.

      Where's the drawback again?

    41. Re:I can live with that. by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      The major problem I have with this is that the government just cannot resists selling this information to corporations. The DMV does it and once they get the toll tracking information you can beat there will be some corporation banging on the door with a bucket of crash so that they can set 50 miles of Marlboro or Coca-Cola bulletin boards.

      It is pitiful when your government becomes a front for corporations

    42. Re:I can live with that. by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1

      So get it on with your side of the bridge...

    43. Re:I can live with that. by blank_coil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you don't believe that what you are doing is not immoral, then why hide?"

      I believe this is known as a non-sequitor. I ask you this: If I don't believe that what I am doing is not immoral, then why should I make it visible to everyone? Whether or not I choose to hide something that is not illegal is my own call to make, and should have no bearing on whether I'm allowed to do it. If I choose to hide something from you, that's none of your business.
      --
      No sig for you.
    44. Re:I can live with that. by curril · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your concern over tracking anti-government demonstrations is a good and realistic example, however. Here in Denver, Colorado we recently had a major flack over the police keeping a surveillance database on people people who attended demonstrations. While such behavior is 'legal', having police follow you home has a definite chilling effect on freedom of speech.

      The fact is that government surveillance is 'harmless' for law-abiding citizens except in rare cases where a person in a position of trust abuses it. But that presumes that the laws are popular and just. For example, a significant percentage of the US population flagrantly violates various drug control laws. You could argue that better enforcement of these laws would be a good thing, or you could argue that these laws are unrepresentive and enforcement would result in the unfair subjugation of a large minority. Feel free substitute the hot-button issue of your choice, such as abortion, sexuality, race, etc.

      A few other "dramatic" possibilities:
      • Crime ring breaks or bribes its way into the database to rob your home while you are away.
      • Coincidence and bad luck place you and a suspected terrorist at the same place at the same time often enough that you get flagged as a possible sympathizer.
      • Tracking becomes so common that it becomes compulsory, evading it becomes suspicious or even illegal.
    45. Re:I can live with that. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      I also expect that same degree of privacy in my vehicle, up to the point where I start broadcasting my whereabouts and identity to other devices.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    46. Re:I can live with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a small penis... and being black, I wouldn't want Whities to think that any black man has a small dick... That's why I wear clothing...

    47. Re:I can live with that. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      The reason that you would "make it visible" in this particular case is because you want to be able to pay the tolls on the bridge without stopping and handing over coins. In other words, your new visibility is a feature. You have placed a transponder on your car for the express purpose of being recognized by the authorities. You could leave the house with a bag over your head so people wouldn't recognize you, but being recognized is generally thought of as a good thing.

      Unless of course, it means being caught doing something illegal or unethical.

    48. Re:I can live with that. by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      Everyone seems to forget that hiring a private investigator to tail you night and day is perfectly legal, and far more effective than some toll tracker.

      If someone wanted to make your life hell or violate your rights, they don't need this system to do it. Prosecutors busting a defendant's alibi -- or defense attorneys confirming it -- do need it, however. City governments need it to ease traffic congestion and save money. Commuters need it to get to their destination quickly.

      And get this: If you don't like it, you don't have to use it!

    49. Re:I can live with that. by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 1

      Hey, the article this guy mentioned deserves to be posted on the front page, on its own. Its pretty impressive, if it is like they say. I never heard of such stuff before, and btw got pretty impressed.

    50. Re:I can live with that. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Here in Ontario we have a newer toll highway (the 407), and because they charge absurdly high amounts they could afford to put photo license reading equipment on every onramp and offramp, and you get mailed a bill the month following. Of course, all they've proven is that a particular car drove on that highway, not that a particular driver drove on that highway.

      Personally I see no privacy invasion from this whatsoever : Cars are licensed equipment, and it seems fair to me that they can track where your car (note: Not you, your car) went on the roadway system. If you're concerned about getting caught on a booty call, then let your friends borrow your car for a while for some deniability.

    51. Re:I can live with that. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I'm certain that we all believe that the government is honest and trustworthy, and would never think of misusing information that it had obtained under the pretext that it wouldn't be disclosed.

      Want to buy a bridge?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    52. Re:I can live with that. by Scoria · · Score: 2

      Many criminals *are* stupid, so if this helps catch them then I'm happy.

      Criminals that are captured may be stupid, anyway... :)

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    53. Re:I can live with that. by Iumma · · Score: 1

      ...surveillance of free citizens... How long until we recognize that the surveillance must be mutual? The number of ways that governments and corporations can track an individuals behaviour proliferate (consumer cards like air miles and drug store point cards as well as traffic cameras) whereas the reciprocal surveillance individual citizens have access to is limited by the media (controlled by a limited number of media monopolies). One way of evening this balance would be to force all data into a public domain. We certainly have a media that can handle it. Public scrutiny would prevent abuses of power.

    54. Re:I can live with that. by jgerman · · Score: 2

      Why hide? Privacy. Simple answer. Furthermore, chances are good what you are doing others may find un-ethical no that the act itself is unethical and there is a big difference. Even that isn't really true. Do you get dressed on your front lawn? Id your toilet on the sidewalk? I doubt it. There are hundreds of things that I keep to myself. I don't reveal ANYTHING of myself to people I don't car for. When those people are also in a position to attempt to punich me based on THEIR idea of what is moral I'm even more protective. Morality is in no way defined by whether or not an act, or thought is open or private.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    55. Re:I can live with that. by Moonshadow · · Score: 2

      Your car's a public place, not public property.

      A cop cannot legally search your trunk without a) your consent, or b) a search warrant. He can go to town on the rest of the car, though. The trunk, by some strange definition, is a private place. Go figure.

    56. Re:I can live with that. by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      My car is not public place. Just as my house is not a public place. My car travels on a public roads and private roads. My house sits next to a public road.

      Now what goes on in the car or the house is visable to from public or private locations makes them publicly viewable. Hence you can be arrested for not wearing clothes.

      A police officer can not "go to town on the rest of the car"... He can though look in windows and see what is in open view (publicly viewable). If he see some thing that can warrent a search warrant, then he can get a search warrant on that bases.

      He can also get you to be dumb enought to give up your rights and search with your consent.

    57. Re:I can live with that. by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      Actually, your car is not your private property in the same way your house is. I remember a story a lawyer once told me, about a client he had who had shot a man who had broken into his car. The cop advised the guy, "next time" I guess, to drag the body to the door, since you have the right to shoot someone who invades your house... but not your car.

      You have a right to shoot someone in self-defense period, whether they're invading your car or your home. Assuming it's legal to carry a gun there, of course. :P

  6. Offtopic? by The_Rippa · · Score: 0

    Getting moderated on Slashdot is harder than solving the turing puzzle.

    1. Re:Offtopic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time don't add the first post reference, it makes it look like you just spouted out any old tripe in order to get an early post.

  7. It could be cracked? by sapped · · Score: 1

    "I personally am a little creeped out by it," said interior designer Heidi Hirvonen-White, who crosses the Golden Gate Bridge up to twice a day commuting between Tiburon and San Francisco. "In today's society it seems like any sort of code or whatnot can be broken."

    Congratulations Heidi! You just broke it! Without having to resort to any script kiddie stuff I just figured out you cross the Golden Gate Bridge twice a day.

    But wait, that is not all! I sense more coming through here... Yes, you are an interior designer!

    For heavens sake, if she is that worried about her privacy why is she giving her name, location and profession to the newspaper to plaster all over the place!?

    1. Re:It could be cracked? by Skyshadow · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not to be contrarian, but the difference is that, in telling you her name, profession and travel habits, she's controlling the release of her information.

      I think, basically, that's what most people want.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:It could be cracked? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      What we need is an "opt-out" code an all of these electronics.

      Privacy laws should require that goverment surveillance (without court order) can be opted out of. Each toll transponder, GPS-enabled cell-phone, OnStar system, etc, should have a switch, code, or other mechanism for opting-out of aggregate data collection.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    3. Re:It could be cracked? by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Well, you could pay your tolls using cash, take a soldering iron to the GPS chip in your cell-phone, rip out your OnStar system (or buy a car without one), and generally avoid tying yourself to mechanisms which might record your data and could possibly be exploited against you in the future.

      Or did you mean that they should have to opt-in before data-collection could be initiated?

    4. Re:It could be cracked? by Eristone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, you opt-in when you decide to use the gadget. You can opt out by turning off the service/not using it.

    5. Re:It could be cracked? by Ironica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have an opt-out feature on all of those items. Just don't use them. None of them are essential.

      When it comes to private companies selling my personal information to make more money, so that other companies can direct-market at me and make more money, opting out makes sense. But when you're talking about them wanting to be able to find a phone that dialed 911, well... that's often my biggest fear; that I'll get to the phone in time to call, but not be able to tell them my location fast enough. Right now, they have no way of finding me unless I tell them. (If you call from a landline, the information automatically comes up, and there's no way to block it. You also can't block Caller ID information from showing up when you call a toll-free number, because if you're calling just to run up their bill, they can seek restitution.)

      You're talking about the government (you vote for them, unless you're silly enough to complain about them and then stay home on election day like it's somebody else's problem), not private companies. They're a non-profit entity. You (and a few million of your friends) can fire them from their jobs. If you're afraid of government abuse, keep your eye out, and make sure your representatives know your concerns. Heck, sponsor an initiative referendum for a citizen's oversight group, if you really don't trust them with this info.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  8. This always bothered me by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 4, Funny
    I use to have a toll transponder and commute to work. When I got my bill, It listed the time I went through any given toll. There were two tolls - one to enter the road, and one to exit.

    I'm sure glad I was never asked to explain how I made it nine miles in under eight minutes on a 55 MPH road.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    1. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, nine miles in under 8 minutes, that's nothing! I went from the toll booth on the 241 to the toll booth 7 miles away on the 133 in 3 minutes according to one of my statements. Yes, I was averaging about 130mph, and no, they never questioned me or issued a ticket :)

    2. Re:This always bothered me by splume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keep this sort of talk to a minimum. Those of us who enjoy hauling-ass don't want the police to get a clue as to this sort of thing. In fact, in Europe, they do just that. Many of the larger tour buses have devices that record entrance and exit times, and the police can stop and check these devices and issue tickets on the spot.

      --

      Who is John Galt?
    3. Re:This always bothered me by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      You know, I dont think the toll road operators are this stupid, I'm sure document the descrepencies and show some sort of statisitical report to authorities,...I say this because I too take the toll roads to commute to work and I see FAR more cops, speed traps, and people getting busted on the toll roads than I ever do on regular highways

    4. Re:This always bothered me by cpeterso · · Score: 2


      I'm sure glad I was never asked to explain how I made it nine miles in under eight minutes on a 55 MPH road.

      well, for all they know, maybe you just took a shortcut! ;-)

    5. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very likely due to the fact that they have to prove it was YOU driving the car. Without adequate proof, you could probably challenge the ticket, say that it wasn't you driving, and then claim the 5th when they ask you who was driving.

    6. Re:This always bothered me by jpmorgan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In fact, France almost completely relies on correlating the times between toll stations to catch speeders. It's why when you're driving in France you see a lot of people with flashy cars at the side of the road eating lunch or talking for a bit just outside of the toll stations. =)

    7. Re:This always bothered me by cyb3r0ptx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's the solution:

      For people here in VA that have to take the Dulles Toll Road to work each day, some have to pass through 2 tolls (start and end). If you have one of those transponders, only use it once on your trip (i.e. pay the quarter to get on, and use the transponder to exit, or vice versa). That way, getting your average speed would be considerably more of a hassle (if not impossible).

      Or just ditch the thing entirely and stock up on quarters.

    8. Re:This always bothered me by splume · · Score: 1

      Isn't there some sort of discount if you use the e-toll rather than pay with cash? The savings could be material over several years I would think.

      --

      Who is John Galt?
    9. Re:This always bothered me by Darth+Maul · · Score: 2

      Actually, I've heard a story of someone on the Penn Turnpike getting a huge ticket because they did that calculation based on the entry and exit locations (stamped on the toll ticket), and the time stamps. The average speed turned out to be over 100 mph, so the cops just pulled him over right after he payed the exit toll.

      See, this is the kind of stuff that gets us all scared. Everything will be monitored and compiled in some huge database, automatically sending out speeding tickets.

      <sarcasm>Boy I'm glad I live in a free country</sarcasm>

      --
      --- witty signature
    10. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why do they fucking speed, if they're going to sit there at the side of the road, for the same amount of time it would have taken to drive through at the speed limit?

      That makes absolutely no fucking sense, at all.

    11. Re:This always bothered me by jgerman · · Score: 2

      I'd be pretty pissed about this. Probably easy to throw out in US courts. The clocks would have to be shown to be calibrated to each other exactly, ect.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    12. Re:This always bothered me by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      there are states that do that. NY is the only one I know of, and chances are good there are others.

      I typically drive from South Jersey to the DC area, and every toll has EZPass installed, so I can whiz right through, and I've never gotten anything unusual in the mail relating to going from the Deleware Memorial Bridge from NJ to the I-95 toll exiting DE. Limit through this stretch is 55, but everyone goes 65+.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    13. Re:This always bothered me by renehollan · · Score: 2

      It is better to have to drive the a short distance in time X, than a longer one -- you are less likely to be late.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    14. Re:This always bothered me by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      In the US, turck drivers can be fined for speeding based on distance/time/speed limit calculations from two toll points.

      --
      We should write in a more understandable fashion.
      Write (should) [we;*] in -> (a fashion (understandable (more))).
      It would make more sense to do so.
      Make (would) [it,sense (more)] to -> (do [*,it] so).

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    15. Re:This always bothered me by GiorgioG · · Score: 1

      Then why do they fucking speed, if they're going to sit there at the side of the road, for the same amount of time it would have taken to drive through at the speed limit?

      The need for speed my friend! Why the fuck do people overclock their Windows systems when it'll take them the same amount of time to bluescreen? ;-)

    16. Re:This always bothered me by btlzu2 · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that most states haven't thought of this already? I just think they're trying to slip it in slowly here in Illinois someday when we're not looking and it's too late to complain. How can you not make the connection between time and distance to calculate velocity, even if you are just a politician? :)

      --
      Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
    17. Re:This always bothered me by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2

      They can charge people (ie give them a ticket) based on the time it took to enter and then exit said toll area?

    18. Re:This always bothered me by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm sure glad I was never asked to explain how I made it nine miles in under eight minutes on a 55 MPH road.

      Just tell 'em you would have done better if you hadn't had to stop to fix that flat tire.

    19. Re:This always bothered me by r00tarded · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're not free to break the law fuckhead. the 55 mph is the law, its not the law only if you get caught.

    20. Re:This always bothered me by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Here's another solution:

      Don't break the law.

    21. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody is free to break the law. We are not free of the consequences of breaking the law, though.

    22. Re:This always bothered me by Dannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you're not free to break the law...

      I've recently been reflecting on the purpose of the law. I agree, as part of a civil society we choose to give up our freedom to do things that are against 'the law'. Why? Well, to secure Life, Liberty, and Property, according to the founders of this country.

      So, why do we have laws imposing a 55mph speed limit? To preserve life, as such speed limits theoretically reduce the number of innocent people transformed into road pizza by some confused drivers who might otherwise confuse small-town roads with the European Autobahn.

      So again, back to my original point, and I'll pretend I'm a Californian for a moment. Why should the State Patrol be allowed to use this transponder data to catch speeders? Well, if it can be proven to save lives without an unreasonable cost in tax dollars (and yes, you can put a price tag on a life, just ask any insurance company), then I would be for it. If, on the other hand, it's just to force people into obedience of the law for the law's sake, then it starts to be an abuse of freedom.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    23. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do idiots like you insist on breathing. Do us all a favor and put a plastic bag over your head.

    24. Re:This always bothered me by 1lus10n · · Score: 0

      oh my ......

      now slow a$$ driving soccer dads in mini vans are posting to /. ........

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    25. Re:This always bothered me by theFool · · Score: 1

      This is very likely due to the fact that they have to prove it was YOU driving the car. Without adequate proof, you could probably challenge the ticket, say that it wasn't you driving, and then claim the 5th when they ask you who was driving.

      camera?

      --
      LINK : LNK6004: Sig not found or not built by the last incremental link; performing full link
    26. Re:This always bothered me by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1
    27. Re:This always bothered me by jerryasher · · Score: 2

      France and New Jersey (at least NJ in the mid-eighties.)

    28. Re:This always bothered me by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      Get 2 transponders (say you have 2 cars) and use one to enter and another to exit.

    29. Re:This always bothered me by dynamo · · Score: 1

      That is actually brilliant.

      It removes all of the (practical) motivation to speed. You can't remove the other kind of motivation anyway, unless you make speeding commonplace and legal.

    30. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just a Camera, but in many states (like Wisconsin) as long as you give consent to someone driving your vehicle you are liable for any traffic citations issued. The only way to get out of this one is to file a stolen vehicle report and claim your vehicle was stolen and then try and explain how you magically got it back :)

    31. Re:This always bothered me by Weh · · Score: 1

      on a stretch of highway close to where I live they've got cameras that film and digitally identify license plates. They've got them along a stretch of road so that they can calculate the average speed of the vehicle over the stretch. I know someone that got a ticket for speeding this way.

    32. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the parent comment to the one you are responding to?

      Can anyone explain how this post makes sense in context?

    33. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why do they fucking speed, if they're going to sit there at the side of the road, for the same amount of time it would have taken to drive through at the speed limit?

      Because they still spend less time actually driving. When they're on the side of the road, they're not just sitting idle, they're doing something. You can take an hour to drive somewhere at the speed limit, or take 45 minutes to drive there, speeding, and use the extra 15 minutes that you're required to spend on the road to do something productive.

    34. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, cheer up bro, life is too short to be annoying and pissing off everyone.

    35. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you can see the end of the road and there is little traffic, then you don't have to worry about running into a traffic jam by the time you get there. But, if you can't see the end of the road, whose to say that there isn't a parking-lot waiting for you around the next curve?

    36. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why do we have laws imposing a 55mph speed limit? To preserve life, as such speed limits theoretically reduce the number of innocent people transformed into road pizza...

      And did the driver who went 9 miles in 8 minutes "turn any people into road pizza"??

      Nope.

    37. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called being hilarious, look into it.

    38. Re:This always bothered me by Krimsen · · Score: 2

      Doesn't the 5th amendment only allow you to not incriminate yourself? I don't think you can plead the 5th when asked who was driving the car.... unless of course you are trying to say that you can *wink* and say it wasn't you driving, but then plead the 5th when they ask you who was driving... ok forget it... brain fried...

    39. Re:This always bothered me by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1

      Disguise?

    40. Re:This always bothered me by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      I've heard this a lot... but is this true? I've always blasted along the autoroutes to the south of France, speeding and not stopping either. I never got a ticket.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    41. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't see this working more than one time. If you get a speeding ticket in the mail based on EZ-Pass or some similar system, won't it then be the last time you ever use EZ-Pass? As for basing it on printed toll tickets, it can't be that hard to obliterate the entry time printed on it.

    42. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, they track your speed using
      1) static camera -safeTcam
      2) Mobile phone IEMI
      3) transponder

      Then changed the law so digital photos are proof, and onus of guilt reversed. I hope they catch the guy with a random toll transponder.

    43. Re:This always bothered me by ipfwadm · · Score: 2

      And did the driver who went 9 miles in 8 minutes "turn any people into road pizza"?? Nope.

      We don't know. He didn't say :-)

    44. Re:This always bothered me by ipfwadm · · Score: 2

      As for basing it on printed toll tickets, it can't be that hard to obliterate the entry time printed on it.

      Basing it on the time printed on the tickets is useless. I've gotten tickets printed with the wrong DAY, let alone the wrong time.

    45. Re:This always bothered me by alexburke · · Score: 2

      Buy this book. The author knows what he's talking about.

      I did, and it opened my eyes. Speeding laws are mainly enforced as a revenue stream -- make that a cash cow.

    46. Re:This always bothered me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here's a radical idea: speed limits aren't rational laws.

      They were introduced during the oil crisis to conserve fuel, because above 55mph, air resistance forces your car to burn more just to keep the speed constant.

      Today they are nothing but a scam for police to make money. "55 saves lives" is bullshit designed to perpetuate this scam.

      In Europe it used to be that one could drive at any speed on the highway virtually anywhere. Good drivers on good roads don't need speed limits. Europe has since realized that much money can be made by embracing this scam, so it's spreading.

      It's a pity that many don't realize that having people sit in their cars for longer than neccessary is bad for the economy as a whole - more money is probably lost than is made through speeding tickets. Interstate commerce is made less efficient.

      Speed is not dangerous. Repeat that over and over again until you get it through your thick skull. For good cars, good roads, and good drivers, 100mph is not a hazard. Just ask any German citizen.

    47. Re:This always bothered me by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

      You know, I thought about arguing about possible clock discrepancy. Then I realized that I travel both ways, and it would be hard to make that argument twice.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    48. Re:This always bothered me by splume · · Score: 1

      "Just ask any German citizen"

      Or anyone who drives a German car for that matter. The problem is that, would you really want to be driving the American POS down the road at 100MPH? I certainly wouldn't want to be behind that person for fear of parts breaking loose.

      The fact is, German cars are built for speed and handling in hi-performance driving situations (not just at high speeds down the highway, but high speeds up a mountain). The same thing goes for some Japanese cars (most Hondas, a couple Toyotas.)

      If I want to burn through fuel in my 30MPG sedan, than that is my problem. However, I am probably still getting better gas-mileage than the average American SUV.

      --

      Who is John Galt?
  9. Automatic tickets coming up soon by guacamolefoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The way to pay for this fancy new traffic monitoring is clearly to send tickets to everyone that goes from point A to point B in less time than it should take per the posted speed limit. Considering that we already have automatic red light and speeding traffic tickets (no police intervention required!), this seems like the next step for the "coddle you to death" bureaucrats to take.

    1. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Growing up in the NE, we often traversed the Penn. State Turnpike. Back then, they gave you a punch card (Hollerith card for you purists) at the entrance booth, and you handed to the attendant when you exited. If your calculated speed was above a certain limit, you were referred to a Penn. state trooper waiting at the booth for a "consultation."

      My father was a cop, so it was never a big deal, professional courtesy and all that...

    2. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by TheKubrix · · Score: 2, Funny

      i dunno....that might be hard to prove if taken to court, considering the speed of light ain't what it use to be!

    3. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by garcia · · Score: 1

      I was pulled over on the PA Turnpike for this. I was doing about 105 between two toll booths not thinking anything of it (it wasn't heavily patrolled back in the day).

      The cops used the time -> time between the two booths to figure out that I was going in excess of 100 mph and gave me a ticket for "reckless driving/endangerment".

      I (living in OH) decided to just pay the fucking ticket and be done w/it (as there was only 2 pts on my license or something).

      I told the cop he needed to do some real police work instead of cheating. He was not pleased.

    4. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Null_Packet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good point, but under California law this kind of speed enforcement is labeled a 'Speed Trap' and is expressley outlawed in Cali. The basic definition AFIAK is a speed trap uses two measuring devices at each end of a 'corridor', where your progress is timed and used to give you a ticket. In some states they used choppers and cessnas to stopwatch your progress between visible/plotted markers and a ground unit is dispatched to issue the ticket.

      CA outtlaws this practice and requires for speeding tickets that the same office who clocked you is the same office you tickets you (with some slight variances). Worry less about the CHP and worry more about CalTrans' ability to fsck the data up and not build freeways in a timely manner.

    5. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2

      > I was pulled over on the PA Turnpike for this.
      > I was doing about 105 between two toll booths
      > not thinking anything of it (it wasn't heavily
      > patrolled back in the day).
      >
      > The cops used the time -> time between the two
      > booths to figure out that I was going in excess
      > of 100 mph and gave me a ticket for "reckless
      > driving/endangerment".

      Another poster mentioned this. I've travelled the PA turnpike a million times at grossly excessive speeds and this has never happened to me. When was this? I wonder if it is something they did for a while and then stopped (for any number of reasons, like the PA statute on calculating speed via timing devices, for one).

    6. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by cpeterso · · Score: 3, Interesting


      what if the clocks at each endpoint are not properly synchronized? you might be able to challenge the ticket claiming the second clock was a few minutes "slow".

    7. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The way to pay for this fancy new traffic monitoring is clearly to send tickets to everyone that goes from point A to point B in less time than it should take per the posted speed limit. Considering that we already have automatic red light and speeding traffic tickets (no police intervention required!), this seems like the next step for the "coddle you to death" bureaucrats to take.

      Yeah, nothing like taking steps toward reliable, equitable enforcement of existing laws. Just think, you could suddenly start receiving tickets for breaking speed limit laws every time you break speed limit laws! Those fucking bureaucrats!

      How the hell is some automated timer system supposed to differentiate between you, a good, God-fearin', tax-payin', hard-workin' Merr-kinn in a nice new Ford Explorer and that damned migrant worker in the shitbox VW Minibus?

      It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner, and all us decent folk will get sent upriver, too!

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    8. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by garcia · · Score: 1

      that's for local roads, they use VASCAR. For toll roads and Interstates they use radar.

      This was probably w/in the last 5 or 6 years.

    9. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

      Many cities rely on tickets as a source of revenue. When you ALWAYS get caught speeding, eventually nobody will speed.

      I don't think the goal is to stop speeding which is mostly harmless (after all the highways in america were engineered to be safe at 100MPH with 1960's suspension) but rather to be more of a tax on people in a hurry.

    10. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Good point, but under California law this kind of speed enforcement is labeled a 'Speed Trap' and is expressley outlawed in Cali.

      I suppose it'd be silly of me to state the obvious, but I'll do it anyway: laws can be changed, quietly, quickly, and without you knowing much about it. Today the law can call it a speed trap. There's nothing to stop "the powers that be" from changing that law -- nothing except the public. Unfortunately, "the public" these days is disenchanted with government and pays it little mind. Society has devolved into a bunch of sheeple (sheep+people) that do whatever government wants so long as it doesn't intefere with them watching WWF or The Weakest Link re-runs.

      No, that law would get changed in short order when the city/state governments figured out that they could use this data to issue speeding tickets, automatically and irrefutably, using a simple mathematical formula in their computers. Voila! Instant revenue generator. They've already done it with photo radar, what makes you think they'll restrict this new stuff?

      And to put it in a perspective that the average liberal-minded Slashdotter can grasp, consider this:

      Suppose Google said that they were going to start tracking your web surfing habits anytime you go to their page. They'll record your IP address, what you searched for, what you linked to from their search engine, and place a cookie on your machine identifying you uniquely for all future visits, all without you pressing a button. These statistics would ONLY be used to better the search engine, so they say, but would YOU feel comfortable knowing your online "movements" were trackable?

      I know I wouldn't.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    11. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

      > Yeah, nothing like taking steps toward
      > reliable, equitable enforcement of existing
      > laws. Just think, you could suddenly start

      I for one do not think that sending a red light ticket to the owner of a car regardless of who the driver is, is an "equitable" way of enforcing the red light laws. That is what happens in MD with the automatic red light tickets. The owner is responsible even if the face of the driver is clearly visible and clearly not the owner.

      > receiving tickets for breaking speed limit laws
      > every time you break speed limit laws! Those
      > fucking bureaucrats!

      Again, this system would not be able to track the driver, it would track the car (potentially). The person who gets fined is the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. Again, I do not believe that this is "equitable." YMMV.

      > How the hell is some automated timer system
      > supposed to differentiate between you, a good,
      > God-fearin', tax-payin', hard-workin' Merr-kinn
      > in a nice new Ford Explorer and that damned
      > migrant worker in the shitbox VW Minibus?

      I have no idea what brought on this non-sequitur. The only response it merits is that you make too many assumptions.

      I refuse to apologize for demanding that statutes on the books as criminal (albeit summary) offenses be enforced as criminal offenses and not as regulatory violations. It is shockingly unfair to my sense of justice to change the rules so dramatically and to remove the protections enjoyed by the accused.

    12. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

      Let's hope so. The quickest way to get an unfair law repealed is to aggressively enforce it. With speed limits, this will no doubt be the case.

    13. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you'd stop and consider that speed limits exist NOT for safety's sake but instead as revenue generators then you'll figure out that very few motorists agree with these laws, and even fewer actually obey them.

      The highway system in the United States was engineered with curve radii and banking to support 70MPH speeds, which oddly enough is roughly what most people drive at. The Imperial Federal Government decided to scale things back to 55MPH, not to save lives but to save gas back in the Gas Crunch of the early 70's!!! Prior to that, the limit was 70MPH and was largely obeyed by the motoring public.

      When the Gas Crunch was over, the wonderful Federal, State, and Local goverments all noted how much money they were making from all these speedy Americans, many of whom were just driving in the same manner they had prior to the Gas Crunch when it was perfectly safe and legal according to our Imperial Federal Government. Politicians LOVE money, in case you haven't noticed, and they weren't about to kill the goose that laid this golden speed trap egg. We were stuck with the double-nickel for almost 20 years before it was finally abolished on a Federal scale.

      I have no problem with the authorities enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner. I do have a problem with laws designed not with the public's best interests in mind but instead put politicians and their wallets first, and you should too.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    14. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just means you SHOULDNT FuCkING LeND YOuR VEHiCLE TO YOU FrIENDS.

    15. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner, and all us decent folk will get sent upriver, too!

      Given the number of laws on the books, and considering that well over 3000+ brand-new laws get added to those books every year, how much do you have to hide?

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
    16. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      It's my vehicle to do with as I please, unless my Constitutional rights to property have been abridged in some manner. If I loan my brother-in-law my car and he robs a bank and uses my car as the getaway vehicle, should I go to jail for robbing the bank? OF COURSE NOT, YOU FOOL. THE CAR is not responsible for the crime, I AM not responsible for the crime (not even an accessory), MY BROTHER-IN-LAW would be responsible and should be punished. If you support this idiocy of ticketing the owner of the vehicle then I'd love to borrow your car some time.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    17. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could go to jail for helping him.

      As for the car, if you lend it to someone, make them pay you the damn fine. Your problem.

    18. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is, FUCK 'EM!

    19. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      "Next thing you know, they'll be enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner"

      Keep this in mind when you are sent to prison for engaging in oral sex. It is illegal in many areas of the country. Even if you are at home, in bed, shades drawn, under the covers, lights off, and it's just you and your spouse. They can send you to jail if it is found out.

      Don't forget that many of "all the laws on the books" were written over a century ago, and never have been rescinded.

      As for speeding, I go whatever speed I feel is safe. Especially on a open highway with light traffic, 90% of which is going above the legal limit. Not that the 90% makes it 'right' or 'morally legal' or some shit. But 90% travelling at 65mph in a 55mph zone shows the legal speed limit is lower than it should be, and that 65mph is safe. The 55 limit on highways was only put in place because of gas shortages anyhow. Not safety.

    20. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Not to mention increasing the number of people who buy food for jacked up prices at the highway rest stops.

    21. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      my last trip through northern CA I remember seeing "speed monitored by aircraft" signs on I-5, up in the Siskiyous.

    22. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Nightpaw · · Score: 2

      So don't loan your car to people who speed, dumbass. If cousin Eddie wants to borrow your car again, tell him to pay you back.

      And I'm pretty sure you're not responsible for speeding tickets incurred by car theives.

    23. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      If you'd stop and consider that speed limits exist NOT for safety's sake but instead as revenue generators then you'll figure out that very few motorists agree with these laws, and even fewer actually obey them.

      Which is exactly why they should be enforcing the law strictly. "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln.

    24. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      don't forget that it took a major act of Congress to roll back the laws that compelled the states to have 55-MPH highway speed limits or not get any federal highway funding. Once that went away... But I'm pretty sure Congress allowed it to happen originally in the first place, and didn't really want the double-nickel repealed.

    25. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      You're assuming that there'd be some large public outcry to get the speeding laws repealled. I'd like to believe that as well, but my faith in "the public" to protest unjust, incorrect laws has waned quite a bit in the past couple of decades. People seem willing to swallow anything that doesn't involve being beheaded. And I have no doubt the "safety first" crowd would be out in force, claiming the speed limits must stay low "to protect the children". They've done it before, they'll do it again.

      Given how hard it was to get the 55MPH limit dropped, I don't have any faith whatsoever that the public will be motivated by more vigorous enforcement. They'd more than likely just slow down, which would only further the absurdity that is our national highway infrastructure.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    26. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      The owner is responsible even if the face of the driver is clearly visible and clearly not the owner...The person who gets fined is the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver.

      I don't consider this implementation of the law a good one. There are jurisdictions where the driver's face must be identifiable, a far better implementation than Maryland's version. That said, there is something to be said for exercising prudence in whom you loan your car out to.

      I have no idea what brought on this non-sequitur. The only response it merits is that you make too many assumptions.

      Perhaps I went overboard with the bile, but it's no non-sequitur. Are you suggesting that racial profiling isn't one of the biggest civil rights issues facing law enforcement today? Remove the human from a citation and you remove the racial profiling, and the attitudes that fuel racial profiling are, sadly, very much alive and well today. There's an overwhelming sense of traffic laws/speeding laws as being for 'the other guy', and an automated citation system would force people to dramatically change both their driving style and their attitude towards road laws.

      I refuse to apologize for demanding that statutes on the books as criminal (albeit summary) offenses be enforced as criminal offenses and not as regulatory violations. It is shockingly unfair to my sense of justice to change the rules so dramatically and to remove the protections enjoyed by the accused.

      But by automating the system, you're dealing with a major problem with how we do things now: currently, the accused are prejudicially selected to begin with! I won't say that an automated system is the perfect solution, but I -do- think it's a step in the right direction.

      (P.S. Maryland? No wonder. I walk to and from the Metro along Wisconsin Avenue in Maryland every day. Traffic in MD is scary and pretty much anarchistic; the few red light cameras there are do an excellent job of keeping assholes from running reds at those particular stoplights. I would -love- to see -any- kind of enforcement of traffic laws around here, automated or otherwise!)

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    27. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Why should Congress care what the speed limits are set to? Most don't even drive themselves (exception: Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, but I digress) and those that still do can easily get tickets "fixed", unlike the average you and me.

      Point is, the folks who make and enforce the laws are apparently not bound by them!!! When was the last time you saw a COP pulled over for speeding (I'll hazard a guess: NEVER), but they pass me all the time with no lights, no siren. I've followed them before, and they're NOT on their way to a silent alarm, they're just trying to get wherever it is they're going -- albeit just a bit faster than I'M allowed to.

      No, the lawmakers and enforcers have abandoned us, largely because they now consider themselves above the law. Only a public revolt would change things, and the American public has about as much revolt instinct as a lapdog. They just want their WWF Wrestling and Springer re-runs.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    28. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      No, I could NOT go to jail for lending him the car unless I had prior knowledge that the vehicle would be used in the commission of a crime. If I did, then I'd be an "accessory" to the crime, as I stated in my post. However, if I had no prior knowledge then I am (and should be) free of any illegality concerns.

      As for "making them pay the damn fine", good luck there. The cops would come after the car owner and have the law on their side to prosecute. The car owner, however, has no legal means to prosecute the DRIVER of the loaner vehicle whatsoever outside of civil court, the costs of which would be prohibitive unless you're just trying to prove a very expensive point. Sorry, no dice there.

      Try reading up on the laws you're commenting on before making statements like the above. It makes the debate more interesting.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    29. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      I'd like to believe that as well, but my faith in "the public" to protest unjust, incorrect laws has waned quite a bit in the past couple of decades.

      Really? Could you give me an example? Most of the unjust laws I can think of (copyright, drugs, speeding, oral sex) aren't enforced very strictly.

    30. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by elmegil · · Score: 2

      Drug laws. QED. They may not have the means to enforce them as strictly as they like, but damn if they don't try most of the time.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    31. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Ironica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oklahoma was the last state to repeal Prohibition. They voted on it every few years, but decided they liked looking so virtuous compared to the rest of the nation. You could get alcohol, of course, as you could during national prohibition.

      When my mother was a child (born in 1943) a man ran for governor, and let everyone know that he opposed the state prohibition law, but if he was elected, he would enforce the law strictly. He won, and within weeks of his taking office, you couldn't get a drop of liquor anywhere in the state.

      The next time prohibition came up to vote, it was struck down.

      If everyone suffered from equal enforcement of stupid or unfair laws, we'd have a lot fewer of them. As it is, drug laws, unreasonable traffic laws, and so on are often an excuse to pick up "suspicious" folks who haven't done anything more wrong than that white guy over there, except they were born with the wrong look.

      If everyone in California could expect to get a ticket every time they went over the posted limit (be it 55, 65, or 70 now on some roads) the very next election would see an initiative referendum overwhelmingly pass to modify speed laws.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    32. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they can monitor your speed by aircraft, but a CHP cruiser must still follow you and clock you, and then and only then can they issue the ticket.

    33. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by betis70 · · Score: 1

      >>Worry less about the CHP and worry more about CalTrans' ability to fsck the data up and not build freeways in a timely manner.

      I don't know anything about the speeding laws, but the comment about CalTrans' ability to fsck something up is time tested.

      --
      I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
    34. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Suppose Google said that they were going to start tracking your web surfing habits anytime you go to their page. They'll record your IP address, what you searched for, what you linked to from their search engine, and place a cookie on your machine identifying you uniquely for all future visits, all without you pressing a button. These statistics would ONLY be used to better the search engine, so they say, but would YOU feel comfortable knowing your online "movements" were trackable?

      Curiously, I have a cookie from Google on my machine.

    35. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Given how hard it was to get the 55MPH limit dropped, I don't have any faith whatsoever that the public will be motivated by more vigorous enforcement. They'd more than likely just slow down, which would only further the absurdity that is our national highway infrastructure.

      On the other hand, if just about everyone on your block got an automated ticket for, say, 57 in a 55 within the space of a couple of months, I think there'd be political hell to pay.

      As an aside, has anybody seen a decent study of the economic effects of excessively low speed limits (the amount of potential productivity wasted by the population because they can't drive as quickly as is safe, minus the amount of potential productivity lost by those injured or killed as a direct result of speeding, plus the opportunity costs of speeding fines and increased insurance bills, etc.)?

      Imagine the headlines -- low speed limits cost the US economy $XXX billion a year!

    36. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Imperator · · Score: 2

      When I first drove in to Virginia I was somewhat frightened to read a sign informing me that "SPEED LIMIT ENFORCED BY AIRCRAFT". I had visions of a helicopter swooping down from a cloud at me, announcing to me on a loudspeaker that I had been speeding, then opening fire with machine guns to make sure I never speed again. Anyway, later I figured out it was a speed trap as you described, but wouldn't the helicopter idea be more effective?

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    37. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Actually, the funny thing is, recently Los Angeles and Lockheed/Martin found out the hard way that traffic light cameras serve as more of a deterrent than a revenue generator.

      LA and Lockheed signed a contract for the installation of 16 cameras, as something of a test program. The contract included a "commission" on ticket revenues to be paid to Lockheed. After eight of the cameras were installed, Lockheed tried to get out of the rest of the contract, because the revenues weren't what they expected. Strangely enough, at the intersections that had cameras, fewer people were running red lights. A LOT fewer.

      Sad, isn't it? Just when you think you know how the world works, human nature throws you a curve ball...

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    38. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But California can and does use planes to enforce speed; as I understand the law there is no reason the plane couldn't decide which cars to laser from this system.

    39. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter if they're enforced or not, the point is that they're enforcable if and when the authorities say so. In many ways it's worse than if they did vigorously enforce it, because "letting it slide" allows people to get complacent about it and carry on with the activity. That won't stop the judge from throwing the book at you when you're caught.

      Here in Georgia they have some ridiculous laws on the books. One of them bans oral sex as "an unnatural act against God", believe it or not. Having been on the receiving end of numerous such favors from my girlfriend, I could go to jail (and so could she) for that. Sure, they don't enforce it, but they could.

      How about this? Suppose I had a right to kill you, anytime, anywhere, for no reason at all and without fear of prosecution, but I just never decided to do so, whilst you were legally barred from stopping me from doing so or taking steps to defend yourself. Would you feel safe? Didn't think so.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    40. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Go to the National Motorists Association website (http://www.motorists.org/) and you'll find volumes of data that shows increasing speeds does not contribute to an increase in traffic fatalities or accidents.

      Conversely, you can also find data that shows an increased number of accidents per vehicle mile driven when speed limits are set too low. Drivers fall asleep on long routes when they could've already been there if speeds were higher. Further, driving at a speed SLOWER than what you're comfortable at has about the same effects as driving at a speed FASTER than what you're comfortable at, namely an increase in accidents.

      Unfortunately the massive stupidity of the American public has bought the safety lobby's argument hook, line, and sinker. "Speed Kills" was chanted for so long that people no longer think to even question it -- or no longer think at all so it seems sometimes.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    41. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      ...and whoever endorsed the higher speed limits would be denounced by their opponents as caving into the speed demons, the road ragers, and whoever else they can demonize, all while massive throngs of soccer moms chant that speeds must be kept where they are "for the children".

      You think I'm kidding? It would happen. It has happened before. No politician can fight the soccer moms, it seems. They always get their way, because anything they're for is "for the children", and no pol in his/her right mind would DARE do anything that's (by contraposition) "against" the children.

      Spineless herds, all of them.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    42. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by blank_coil · · Score: 1

      The quickest way to get an unfair law repealed is to aggressively enforce it.

      Maybe I'm the only one this doesn't make sense to, but how would enforcing a law aggressively get it repealed?

      --
      No sig for you.
    43. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by aoeuid · · Score: 1

      It's a given that people drive faster than the current speed limits. Right now they have to deal with just the odd ticket. But if it becomes widespread and everyone starts getting a lot of tickets, then there will be widespread unrest and if it starts costing people a lot of money, then it will indeed be worth their while to complain.

      I refer you to the other thread about Photo Radar being repealed in Ontario for evidence.

    44. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      They may not have the means to enforce them as strictly as they like, but damn if they don't try most of the time.

      Obviously you don't live in New York or California... Or Massachusetts or New Hampshire, all of which are pretty damn lax about enforcement of drug laws. New Jersey to a lesser extent, as well.

    45. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      In many ways it's worse than if they did vigorously enforce it, because "letting it slide" allows people to get complacent about it and carry on with the activity. That won't stop the judge from throwing the book at you when you're caught.

      That's exactly the point I'm making. Especially with non-criminal laws, like speeding, strict enforcement is a good thing.

    46. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      ...and whoever endorsed the higher speed limits would be denounced by their opponents as caving into the speed demons, the road ragers, and whoever else they can demonize, all while massive throngs of soccer moms chant that speeds must be kept where they are "for the children".

      I doubt it. Most soccer moms I know break the speed limit. Give 'em a few speeding tickets and you'll see them change their tunes real quick.

      You think I'm kidding? It would happen. It has happened before.

      When?

    47. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      I would agree with you if I thought for one minute that the spineless, insipid American public would stage some sort of protest or outrage against the vigorous enforcement and thus force the laws to change. Unfortunately, I lost faith in the public's ability to be sensible a long time ago, and my admiration for the forces of idiocy grow every day as they find new and interesting ways to sidestep logic and get "the public" to accept their views.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    48. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. Most soccer moms I know break the speed limit. Give 'em a few speeding tickets and you'll see them change their tunes real quick.

      You must live far, far away from me then. Here in Atlanta the soccer moms are the idiots in the left lane doing 55MPH while everyone else swerves around them doing 75MPH.

      You think I'm kidding? It would happen. It has happened before.

      When?


      Reference such idiotic things as the Million Mom March and their stupid, emotionally-driven responses to any issue that threaten to compromise the cradle-to-grave "safety" offered by our Imperial Federal Government and you'll see EXACTLY what I mean.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    49. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      IHBT. IHL. HAND.

    50. Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon by DudeTheMath · · Score: 1
      IIRC, the NY State Thruway used this method of speed limit enforcement until it was thrown out on Fifth Amendement grounds: You must turn in your ticket, but you cannot be coerced into testifying against yourself. The Mean Value Theorem is quite simple to demonstrate in a court of law, but you were "forced" to give them your average speed by turning in the ticket.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
  10. I wouldn't be against anonymous tags by Erioll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the idea of tags to track traffic if used for purely congestion purposes, and helping ems, etc finding the quickest way to some place, but not if able to be used for tracking individuals. Just make tags that everyone is required by law to have in their vehicles, but make them with no ID tags at all. Each transponder will basically be saying "yes there is a tag here" rather than "tag 13489023094 is here". It would allow better traffic flow dynamics with real-time data on how dense traffic is, while keeping anonymity.

    Being able to be tracked, in any form, isn't a good thing for innocent people. Maybe (BIG maybe) for conviced child molestors, murderors, etc it'd be OK to have a unique ID, and police trackable, but for the innocent (remember innocent until proven guilty you big-brother types?), there should be NO means of finding them, even if they are a suspect in a crime. Police shouldn't have access to that kind of data on normal law-abiding people. And making the tags themselves "generic" will make it impossible for them to know.

    Erioll

    1. Re:I wouldn't be against anonymous tags by Whafro · · Score: 1

      Well, on the east coast, with all our turnpikes and toll highways, there is a big push for people to use transponder tags to pay their tolls (via the EZPass and compatible systems, primarily).

      So it gets interesting when driving on many of the most travelled roads and bridges subjects you to tracking, and not just the occasional bridge as on the west coast. And since these tags are used to pay tolls, they need some sort of identification scheme, and simply cannot be anonymous.

      At any rate, requiring people to have a tag in their car simply for the purpose of tracking traffic is a complete violation of privacy. There would probably be a fair number of volunteers for such a program that would make it worthwhile, but to require that all citizens subject themselves to tracking while driving on open-access freeways is just not kosher.

    2. Re:I wouldn't be against anonymous tags by Erioll · · Score: 1

      You're right. For payment purposes, a unique ID is necessary. But they shouldn't be "piggybacking" tracking technology on top of that as is being done in the article. That's the danger in any "convergent" technology. It's just too easy to have unique identifiers to track you all over the place. Sure, if you had some good data miners, you could see "ah. That guy paid this toll, then this one, etc so he's heading east (west, north whatever)." But with it being used for both, and MEANT that way, you obviously are being tracked on a per-person basis.

      I was probably wrong to say that it should be legislated in so that everybody has to have one. Just enough drivers in the program to have a representative sample of the number of people on that road is probably enough, so a volunteer system would probably work, but regardless, it shouldn't be a "combined" tag with tolls, etc, since that promotes tracking. Just make them seperate.

      Erioll

  11. what's the range on these things.... by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    there can't be alot of power, heck sometimes they don't even register on the bridge...hence the phantom $4 CHARGES. Until the tracking devices are as ubiquitious as telephone poles or streetlights you've little to worry about.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  12. The part I don't get by Russellkhan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is just what about direct monitoring of traffic sounds cool? To me it sounds roughly as cool as a mandatory government email proxy so that all email can be directly monitored (For our own protection, of course). Russ

    --
    Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
    1. Re:The part I don't get by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      just what about direct monitoring of traffic sounds cool?

      You get better pattern trend analysis. Data can be gathered to determine not only localized trouble spots, but over much larger areas.

      I too am concerned about the nasty trend of our government (and other governments around the world) to slowly errode our privacy and freedoms. I've had enough.

  13. License plates by metatruk · · Score: 2

    I just spent a few days visiting my cousin in San Francisco. Apparently if the electronics don't work in the electronic toll lane, a camera captures your license plate number and then they look you up and bill you later. I wonder if they would also use this to track people?

  14. But wait...there's more! by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here in north Texas, the NTTA is the toll authority. If you drive around town, you can find Amtech transponders mounted high up on telephone poles -- miles away from the tollroads! Not only does NTTA track you on the tollway, they are apparently keeping tabs on you when you're not on the tollway.

    For the non-believers in Dallas: Look in the median on Valley View, just west of Marsh in Farmers Branch.

    1. Re:But wait...there's more! by djshaffer · · Score: 1

      > Here in north Texas, the NTTA is the toll authority. If you drive around town,
      > you can find Amtech transponders mounted high up on telephone poles -- miles away
      > from the tollroads! Not only does NTTA track you on the tollway, they are apparently
      > keeping tabs on you when you're not on the tollway.

      > For the non-believers in Dallas: Look in the median on Valley View, just west of Marsh in Farmers Branch.

      I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but this is probably to study where to put new tollways. They *are* planning the new section of 190 in that area.

    2. Re:But wait...there's more! by pongo000 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the new section of 190 is to be built well west of there, west of I35E, in fact, right where Valley View and 635 intersect in Irving. The transponder I was talking about is located in a residential/light business area...

    3. Re:But wait...there's more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those transponders are everywhere here in Houston. Some also have cameras.

    4. Re:But wait...there's more! by aclark · · Score: 1
      Those transponders are everywhere here in Houston. Some also have cameras.

      More than that though, it is all freely accessible to the public at http://traffic.tamu.edu.

      It seems that it is impossible to stem the flow of this technology. Cameras will be placed on street corners and methods for police to find crime will improve. The real concern, IMNSHO, is who is looking through the cameras, gov't or everyone?

      --
      Ashley Clark
  15. Personal Privacy by Gaggme · · Score: 1

    We find ourselves at a cross roads

    On on path, we have no privacy, the other we are shrouded in obscurity.

    My opinion, I don't care if someone knows where I drive everyday. Why should I? I'm not doing anything wrong, so what does it matter if Big Brother knows that I had McDonalds last night, or I watched LOTR on DVD? If your not doing anything wrong, then whats the problem?

    --
    My ignorance is a perfect shield against your logic.
    1. Re:Personal Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How about when going to McDonalds and watching LOTR when you've called in sick?

      Your boss subscribes to "ShittyEmployees.com"

      Youre fired.

    2. Re:Personal Privacy by sdjunky · · Score: 1

      "My opinion, I don't care if someone knows where I drive everyday. Why should I? ... what does it matter if Big Brother knows that I had McDonalds last night ... "

      How about they decide to start taxing you on every burger you eat. Not so hard to believe if people might be able to get away with this

      " ... or I watched LOTR on DVD? ... "

      They would love to know you watched that DVD. Although you might be a thief or perhaps they can charge you every time you view the DVD.

      Of course you have nothing to fear because "Big Brother" would never give this info to the media conglomerates

      " ... whats the problem?"

      I'll let you answer that one on your own

    3. Re:Personal Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and piss away your freedom. Stay the hell away from mine.

    4. Re:Personal Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to be doing something wrong not to want to be tracked. I won't really want ppl around my work knowing I got a tatoo last night, for instance, yet I commited no wrong. If information is collected in the first place it has a way of flowing. Ok my boss isnt going to find out but, if I run for mayor the incumbent might just be able to get that kinda infor from the municiple police force and use it against me. No one besides me has a right to know where I take my car or for what perpose unless I tell them. Its really very simple/.

    5. Re:Personal Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KGB. Please read a book.

  16. You asked for it! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Many rental fleets and big rig companies already use satellites and global positioning systems to track cars and cargo. Companies are promoting similar products to consumers who want to track their kids, Alzheimer's patients or cheating spouses.

    If you have a wife that would put a Satellite tracker on you, she deserves to get cheated on. With multiple, ugly, crack-whores.

    Trust me or don't marry me.

  17. Glove Box Won't Do it in NY by peterdaly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In New York State, an "EZPass" must be in a special bag for it not to be read. Looks like an anti-static bag and it may be, I don't know.

    I know people who have tried to get the thing to not be read (to get a reciept in order to expense tolls for work) and without the bag it is very hard to "hide."

    The poor design of the system means it can screw you at times if you don't do what is the expected traffic pattern. I was told once at the toll booth getting on that since my EZPass had been read, I was unable to turn around and must now get on the truway going the wrong direction and proceed to another exit or be faced with a $30 fine for illegal U-TURN. Problem was an accident closed the on ramp for the direction I needed to go.

    (I turned around at the next "NO U TURNS" turn around to go the direction I needed to once I had though out how the system worked and knew the turn would not be "detected" by the crappy EZPass system.) Also, it takes at least 24 hours for a credit on your pass to work at most ramps.

    The system in NYS sucks technically. I am quite worried about it being used for speed enforcement purposes and such.

    -Pete

    1. Re:Glove Box Won't Do it in NY by kopper187 · · Score: 1
      The system in NYS sucks technically. I am quite worried about it being used for speed enforcement purposes and such.


      It is already being tested as such. A friend of mine received a 'warning' stating that the State Troopers where aware of his excessive (140+) speed and would not take kindly to another incident of this kind. How did they know? The warning cited E-Zpass toll both logging.

      not a good sign....
    2. Re:Glove Box Won't Do it in NY by ipfwadm · · Score: 2

      It is already being tested as such. A friend of mine received a 'warning' stating that the State Troopers where aware of his excessive (140+) speed and would not take kindly to another incident of this kind. How did they know? The warning cited E-Zpass toll both logging.

      First of all, as a New Yorker and a frequent traveller of the NYS Thruway, I would be happy if the State Troopers used any method they could to get your asshole friend off the road and preventing him from killing me if he's driving over 140 miles an hour. I have little problem with breaking the speed limit, especially since everyone does it, and highways (especially the NYS Thruway) are designed to be safe at speeds in excess of 80mph. But more than double the speed limit is absolutely ridiculous and totally unsafe, considering that the average flow of traffic isn't much more than 75. No one is looking in their rear-view mirror for a car approaching them at 65mph over their own speed, and anyone could easily pull out in front of that car to pass another, and there's nothing that could be done to prevent a (very bad) accident.

      Now, for normal, sane speeders who don't go much faster than 10 or 15 mph over the speed limit, the state is not going to bother sending these people tickets. Why? Because EZPass saves the state money. Toll-takers actually make a decent amount of money, and having automatic toll collection systems saves money by requiring fewer human collectors. As soon as people found out that tickets were automatically being issued for speeding, no one would use the system anymore, and the Thruway Authority would have one big, expensive, useless system on their hands. See other posts for other problems with automated ticket issuing (most notably the fact that the system has no idea who is driving the vehicle, and speeding tickets are issued to individuals, not vehicles).

  18. vehicle ID transponder installed by manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wouldn't you expect that manufacturers will build cars with permanent VIN transponders, required for car inspection, eventually?

  19. This is common in Houston by mprindle · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hey everyone,

    We have had this going on for a long time. They dont come right out and say they are using the toll tags for that purpose, but you know it's being done when you look at a site like this: Houston Traffic Map. It is pretty cool though. You can look at the map and see what roads are moving and which ones are not and during rush hours most of em arent.

    M Prindle

    1. Re:This is common in Houston by cpeterso · · Score: 2


      that Houston Traffic Map is pretty cool. I thought the animated historical traffic speed data was especially cool.

    2. Re:This is common in Houston by thomasdelbert · · Score: 1

      All this needs though is a radar. It doesn't need to know WHO is going through, it just needs to clock vehicles as they drive by.

      --
      ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
    3. Re:This is common in Houston by mkldev · · Score: 1


      It doesn't require tag tracking. They do that here in CA, too. It's done with sensors in the road. It's quite simple. Measure the capacitance on two sensors in the road, a la traffic light sensors. Now calculate the time between the peaks. Do a little quick math and you can convert that into miles per hour.

      Don't believe me? Look on the road beneath every traffic sign on a highway. Two small circular road cuts with sensor wires embedded, one slightly in front of the other. The signs have a transceiver that sends data back about traffic motion and receives data to display on the sign. Pretty elegant, IMHO.

      It's not completely accurate, though. Certain things can really throw it off, like a car crossing into the lane right at the sensor. That's why those systems occasionally report numbers like 130 mph for a couple of seconds when you know that there's no way somebody could be going that fast on the 101 in rush hour.

      The point being that while they aren't accurate enough to catch speeders, they are perfectly fine for estimating the speed of traffic flow, and don't require any sort of non-anonymous tracking of your vehicle.

      --
      120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
    4. Re:This is common in Houston by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      ...they very well could be using inductance loops in the road. That was the preferred method in Puget Sound and San Diego. Phoenix seemed to use a radar-based system.

    5. Re:This is common in Houston by mprindle · · Score: 1

      Hey there,

      I agree that some of the speed measurements are coming from road sensors, but the majority are coming from sensors that read the Toll Tag transponders. As you are driving down the freeway if you know where to look on the overhead exit signs you can see the readers. One one particual freeway here that space is limited you can see polls w/ the antenna's, one pointing to each lane. I'm pretty sure the majorty of the measurements are coming from the toll tag transponders though.

      M Prindle

    6. Re:This is common in Houston by emars · · Score: 1

      One of the local TV stations shows a map like this during the news to show speeds and where the highway is clogged etc... it's funny to see the average speed on some of the routes, 75, 65... when the speed limit is 55. Of course, you only see this when rush hour is just starting or ending... otherwise, it's 15-25 everywhere. heh

      --
      ...18...19...20 Submit
    7. Re:This is common in Houston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. These are microwave (or sometimes sound) based. Traffic systems use these devices in most areas and they do not depend on any passes or cards carried in the car.

  20. using coins does not protect you by Hollins · · Score: 2

    Passing on the transponder and using coins won't sheild you from this type of thing. Most states put cameras at tollbooths to photograph the license plate of those who don't pay. When someone skips through a booth, a photo is taken of their license plate, OCR software reads the tag number and a ticket is generated without any human interaction. It would be trivial to write software that records the plate of each vehicle passing through, along with a timestamp.

    1. Re:using coins does not protect you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where you mod your car so you can flip your license plates (ala KITT, from that old show Knight Rider), with a push of a button. Set one set to your legal plates, another set to generic "new car" plates, and other set to out of-country plates (ie, if you're from the US, invent some plate from "Upper Brunswickia".)

      Of course, with the current security situation, doing this will probably earn you a visit by a bunch of state troopers the next time you try and pass the tollbooth on your way to work.

  21. No Big Deal by mosch · · Score: 2
    This is valuable data, being collected in a relatively unobtrusive way, with an opt-out program that came with your pass (at least on the east cost, EZpass gives you a mylar bag when you sign up, in case you don't want to use it or are paranoid). Let's be glad that for once, the government is doing something in a technologically intelligent, and efficient manner.

    Okay, so what they're doing is gathering traffic data, which they destroy after 24 hours, leaving only aggregate data with which they can analyze traffic flow and such. This isn't exactly an invasion of privacy.

    To those people who think that by not having a little pass on, nobody can track you, I point you the toll highways where they just electronically read your license plate in order to charge you your toll, instead of bothering with an electronic tag, or the occasional murder case where they manage to find photos of the suspect paying a toll somewhere, despite the fact that the suspect wasn't using an electronic tracking tag.

    1. Re:No Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Okay, so what they're doing is gathering traffic data, which they destroy after 24 hours, leaving only aggregate data with which they can analyze traffic flow and such. This isn't exactly an invasion of privacy."

      Anyone who buys this load of crap obviously hasn't bothered to see what the Feds do with the "instant check" program used when someone wants to purchase a firearm. Congress specifically states that the information may not be stored, and that it can only be used at the moment to check the background of the purchaser. DOJ goes ahead and says "FUCK YOU" to Congress and stores it anyway. Various groups (NRA included) sue DOJ to force compliance, but DOJ refuses anyway...

      Best thing: Don't give them the data in the first place, and it can't be abused

  22. Not tracking individuals by nucal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    According to the article:

    Project leaders at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission say they're not interested in the movements of individual drivers, and have gone to great lengths to protect privacy, including encrypting the serial number of each transponder as its location is transmitted. They promise to keep this data separate from the identities of FasTrak users and other information needed to make automatic monthly deductions from their bank or credit card accounts.

    "We're not tracking or trying to follow any individual car, just the overall traffic flow," TravInfo project manager Michael Berman said. "We're really trying to bend over backward to make sure we don't know."

    But it feels like they are spying on me...

  23. Like photo radar it won't work by Neil+Watson · · Score: 3, Informative

    We had photo radar here in Ontario, Canada for a while. No one liked it. The majority of speeders wanted their day in court, instead of paying a fine. The courts became so backed up with photo radar cases that the government had to stop using photo radar.

    1. Re:Like photo radar it won't work by Tackhead · · Score: 3
      > We had photo radar here in Ontario, Canada for a while. No one liked it. The majority of speeders wanted their day in court, instead of paying a fine. The courts became so backed up with photo radar cases that the government had to stop using photo radar.

      Didn't it also take an election campaign and a victory by the opposition party to get photo radar repealed?

      (Amazingly enough, not only did the opposition party win, it looks like they kept their promise by dumping photo radar immediately after the '95 election. A bit of googling reveals that even the losers of the election confirm it.)

    2. Re:Like photo radar it won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone challenged ALL tickets in court, think of how clogged they would get and maybe, just maybe cops would be allowed to get back to eating doughnuts and watching for real criminals instead of catching speeders.

    3. Re:Like photo radar it won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And thank goodness we got rid of that fuckquad Bob Rae... I here he went to BC and fucked them royally too...

      NDP... A party of cluster fucks.

  24. ...and this is supposed to help the congestion... by jukal · · Score: 2

    diddlydummmm...let's just wait a liiitlee while...while the connection buiiilds...*Living easy, living free*, what was the password again, ohhh, right *Asking nothing, leave me be*... now let's just get this image rendered... *Going down, party time*...all right, now it's beginning to show *My friends are gonna be there too* , ok, there's congestion, lemme see... right... right BEHIND me! *I'm on the highway to hell...*

  25. Re: I want to be alarmed by this... by xp_fetchbeer · · Score: 2, Funny

    but I just can't be. Of course they are just trying to desensitize us to this kind of invasion of privacy, but so what. It seems pretty inevitable that we are going to have to start living more like Europeans anyway. Except for the surrendering to Germany every few years part.

    --
    I'm the decider.
  26. What's the *vertical* range? by XianDeath · · Score: 3, Funny

    This could lead to a whole new sport involving low flying jets. Image how the data would look after factoring in a couple "cars" traveling upwards of 250 - 400mph.

    1. Re:What's the *vertical* range? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > This could lead to a whole new sport involving low flying jets. Image how the data would look after factoring in a couple "cars" traveling upwards of 250 - 400mph.

      That data would probably be thrown out as "impossible for cars to achieve".

      It would, however, be pretty hilarious to cruise up and down a highway at 150-200 mph in a Cessna with a bag full of transcievers and Pringles cans (to improve the range).

      I think you'd need to get the range up to over 500+ feet, as flying at treetop level over a highway is probably gonna land you in hot water with the FAA. (And to fly like that in the middle of the night, when the data trackers would be most likely to believe that a band of Ferrari-owning nuts is hauling ass up and down the highway, is even less safe.)

      But it'd sure be a funny hack :)

  27. Avoid them, then by fobbman · · Score: 1, Redundant

    "Of course, anyone who didn't want to be tracked could just put it in the glovebox anyway, so they won't be catching clever felons or tracking real paranoiacs."

    I folded up a little tinfoil hat for mine.

  28. so DONT USE FAST-TRACK! by Kenja · · Score: 1

    I fail to see the problem here. I live in the area in question and know about the system of which they are speaking. It is in no wy required. If you dont like it, dont use it. Why do people have a problem with this? If no one uses the service because of data colection the service providers will go away or change the service to fit the requirments of the consumers.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:so DONT USE FAST-TRACK! by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      It is becoming more and more required, w/o being required. IIRC, California offers some discounts, and certainly varies the rate based on time of day. IL is flat-fee, but recently a proposal to boost the tolls significantly raised the cash price, but did not raise the electronic metered price nearly as much (but that proposal died a flaming death, even with a lame duck governor).

    2. Re:so DONT USE FAST-TRACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PA Turnpike now has "EZPass Only" exits. So much for "no way required".

      Toll takers cut into the revenue. Gotta get 'em fired ASAP. Expect nothing but more of this.

  29. Has anyone heard of any cases of transponder by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    forgery or serial number modification ? It would seem a potentialy profitable area, or just for shits and giggles would it be illegal to manufacture devices which respoond and broadcast bogus data to the system IF you never tried to cross a bridge for free ?? If you can't beat the system, flood it with crap...Imagine the perplexed look on the faces of the traffic people when the system reports gridlock numbers on I880 and traffic is flowing smoothly, or as smoothly as it ever does :) Imagine if there were 50 cars out there broadcasting the same number all over the state at the same time at different speeds.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Has anyone heard of any cases of transponder by buzzsport · · Score: 1

      Supposedly NY State government/highway/police personnel use special state tags that have special codes that never get billed I remember reading some where in the EZ Pass specification. I wonder how much you can retrieve from those devices?

    2. Re:Has anyone heard of any cases of transponder by silentbozo · · Score: 2

      Actually, this is a serious concern. Several credit card outfits have gotten it into their heads that linking a transponder to your credit/debit card is a cool idea. Well, what happens if someone clones your transponder? What if someone just brute forces the code? Not only do they have your credit, they don't even need to have the physical card anymore.

      Even worse are the replace state/national ID cards with transponder proposals...

    3. Re:Has anyone heard of any cases of transponder by two-bookoo! · · Score: 0
      As many people have mentioned above, there are cameras at each of the transponder locations (toll related) and they take a pic if the transponder did not work correctly. To get away with the getting across the bridge for free, you would also need a fake/stolen licence plate.

      OTOH - I would imagine that they are scanning the licence plates and cross referencing them against a database with stolen tags, and stolen cars.
      At least that is what I would be doing.

  30. If they really want to track ppl by randomErr · · Score: 2

    If they really want to track people mandate a chip in their hands. That way they know exactly who is in the car and when.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  31. Its not just the transponder by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

    I use the toll roads to commute to work and there have been times I removed the transponder completly from my car and took the toll road normally (on accident!) then when I looked at my bill they still charged me, but they seperated the charges into a different subsection, such that there was a section for transponder charges and charges via the License Plate number, of which you must register with the toll road people before you can get the trasponder......

  32. An easy fix for that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wipe a thin film of grease or oil onto your license plate, then drive on a dusty road

    The dust that adheres to will not look like *intentional* obscuring of the plate (which is illegal) but it will make it pretty hard to read from any distance or angle

  33. Driving is a privilege by Neil+Watson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Driving is a privilege, not a right. In order to gain that privilege you must expect to give up some privacy in order to protect the public.

    1. Re:Driving is a privilege by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
      ...you must expect to give up some privacy in order to protect the public.

      From what? Potholes?

    2. Re:Driving is a privilege by pankajsethi · · Score: 0

      I follow all the traffic rules. Does not wanting to be tracked down limit my capability as a safe driver? In a case of hit and run, first thing you will do is smash your EZpass before passing a toll booth...

    3. Re:Driving is a privilege by demastri · · Score: 1
      ...you must expect to give up some privacy in order to protect the public.
      From what? Potholes?
      follow the logical thought:

      From those who abuse the privilege.

      Because we have plates (a minimal privacy invasion for law abiding citizens), if you go on a Sat night drunken rampage in your car, hit someone, and their friend catches your plate number, you'll likely be toast.
      It's kinda the same thing with these transponders. I'm a privacy advocate, but I have a hard time saying no to a system that keeps individual traffic patterns and locations private (no human operator can ever see them without a warrant, or similar), but is set to flag particular dangerous conditions - such as a speeding violation of 140 mph (as mentioned elsewhere in this article's comments). That's just common sense...I don't want that person driving anywhere near where my wife and kids are, and if there's a means to prevent it without curbing ANY civil liberties for law-abiding citizens, then fine.

      It's a social CONTRACT, not a manifesto.

      - John
    4. Re:Driving is a privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really isn't a privilege. If I can't get to work, then the Gov. is denying me a right to make a living.
      (spare me the lecture of public transportation or cabs)

    5. Re:Driving is a privilege by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Actually driving is a requirement of our current urban life. Try keeping horse and buggy.

      Since the government and your neighbors will not allow you keep another form of realitly safe transportion, driving has become a right.

      You can NOT be made agree, such as giving up your rights, underdress. Remember that when you are being searched to fly some where or go to school.

    6. Re:Driving is a privilege by jodo · · Score: 1

      I can never understand why so many glibly recite the shibolith "driving is a privilege" The use and enjoyment of any public creation is certainly a right until one proves by behavior to be unfit to engage in that right.

      --

      "Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
    7. Re:Driving is a privilege by Lester388383 · · Score: 1

      " In order to gain that privilege you must expect to give up some privacy in order to protect the public."

      No, I need to demonstrate an ability to drive competently. What imaginary privacy I have left is not an impediment to using the highway
      system and doesn't need to be sacrificed.

      And since I was forced to pay for that highway, my professional use of that system should be a constitutionally protected RIGHT not 'privilege'. If they where writing the constitution from scratch today, it might be in there. Go with out a car for a month and you will discover one can not function effectively in this modern world with out the ability to travel. You will starve slowly.

      A functional mass transit system would solve many other problems and change my mind about whether driving is a privilege or a right but this won't happen in my life time. (And I ride BART everyday....).

    8. Re:Driving is a privilege by _LORAX_ · · Score: 2

      Driving aka freedom to travel is a right that is protected.

      State and federal laws are only allowed to be as minimally invasive as necessary to keep driving safe for everyone. A rodeblock looking for drug trafickers did not hold up to court scrutinty since it does not help road safty. Red light camers are being very carefully scrutinized as well since the benifit of the camers in trafic safty seem to be mininimal at best and therefore it's too intrusive. Police MUST have a legit reason to stop you, and laws to protect the safty of all must me the least intrusive as possible.

      On topic:

      Check your contract, scream bloody murder if those provisions are not in it.

    9. Re:Driving is a privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requiring warrants doesn't prevent "fishing expeditions" by either the police, a corrupt government or a compromised employee. It just makes legal prosecution based on such acuiired information more difficult. If the world were a perfect place, then you could say it doesn't compromise civil liberties, but if the world were a perfect place, none of us would be driving in the first place.

    10. Re:Driving is a privilege by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Driving is a privilege, not a right.

      Really? Well, then, I guess walking must also be a privilege, yes?

      Oh, so you think walking is a right but driving is a privilege, huh? Then, pray tell, what is the difference between the two? Safety? Then how about riding your bicycle? Is that a right or a privilege?

      Think it's a matter of whether or not you do it on "public" property? Well, "public" property is property owned by us, the people. If there is any property we have the right to use, it's public property. But for you to be consistent in using the "public property" argument, then walking on the sidewalk (public property) must be a privilege, not a right.

      Understand this: the entire point behind the founding of the U.S. was to give the people the right to do any damned thing they please so long as in doing so they don't interfere in the rights of others.

      In just over 200 years we've gone from that to the belief that most things are "privileges" to be given or taken away at the whim of the government (and the corporations that control it) we're now so obviously subservient to. It's enough to make any freedom loving person ill.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    11. Re:Driving is a privilege by Ironica · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spare you the lecture? You mean, spare you the reality?

      There are thousands, even millions of families who have fewer cars than they have adults. There are a lot of people who survive with public transportation. Me, I own a car, but I walk or take the bus whenever I can... and I find that I "can" in circumstances when others would think it was not realistic.

      Yes, driving is a privilege. Here's the way it works (in California, anyway):

      - You must be a legal adult, so that you can be held legally responsible for your actions. If you are not, your parents are responsible for what you do while driving, and can take away your license.

      - You must be able to see reasonably well, and if you need corrective lenses, you must wear them whenever driving.

      - You must have a basic understanding of traffic law, and demonstrate that on a written test.

      - You must have a basic understanding of how to operate a vehicle, and demonstrate that in a behind-the-wheel test.

      - You must provide a birth certificate and social security card, your real name, your physical description, an image of your face, your home address, and your signature. You must also surrender all but the first two to any police officer who asks, when you're behind the wheel.

      - Having one identification card or driver's license precludes you from obtaining another under a different name or number.

      You give up a huge amount of privacy, and have quite a bit of proving to do, in order to drive legally. And, no part of the Constitution claims that we have the right to break laws. So, yes, it's a privilege, that you earn by fufilling all the above points. It's one you can lose relatively easily, too.

      Besides, you find something in the Constitution that even implies the right to motorized transit. Or even a horse. Having a driver's license is no more a right than having a car, and is no less essential to exercising your driving privilege, so tell those who can't afford a car about their rights, why don't you.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    12. Re:Driving is a privilege by Zigurd · · Score: 2

      "Driving is a privilege..."

      What makes you say that? U.S. citizens live in a country where, supposedly, our Constitution - our basic LAW - says all unenumerated rights are retained by the states and the people.

      In other words, the government does not grant our rights, much less confer any privileges outside a narrow set of areas where it is permitted to do so by the Constitution.

      So anyone who actually believes "driving is a privilege" has been taken. Bamboozled. Successfully propagandized. Or, worse still, believes it should in fact be a priviledge and that our rights are what the government lets us do. Even a Canadian should be more tuned in to that charter thingy you have up there. Supposedly guarantees some rights. Eh. Whatever.

    13. Re:Driving is a privilege by RollingThunder · · Score: 2

      Travel does not _require_ a vehicle.

      Your feet suffice to satisfy the law. Walk wherever you want.

    14. Re:Driving is a privilege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that "driving is a privelage" bullshit. Driving is so essential nowaday that it should be a goddam right.

    15. Re:Driving is a privilege by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Actually driving is a requirement of our current urban life. Try keeping horse and buggy.

      I suspect the buggy would need a license of some sort today. And you wouldn't be allowed to let your horse eliminate in front of the bank. Does anybody know if buggies ever needed to be licensed? I suspect such a proposal would have been laughed out of the town hall.

      And I'm sure you could run someone down with a horse and buggy, and you could get into collisions too.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Driving is a privilege by Polo · · Score: 2

      Please don't feed the trolls.

    17. Re:Driving is a privilege by ipfwadm · · Score: 2

      --Driving is a privilege, not a right.--

      Really?

      In fact, yes.

      Well, then, I guess walking must also be a privilege, yes?
      No.

      Then, pray tell, what is the difference between the two?
      One involves moving a 2500 pound hunk of steel at 60 miles an hour down the highway, the other involves your 175-pound body slowly plodding along at 4 or 5 mph. The kinetic energy carried by a car (and thus its ability to cause death and destruction) is several orders of magnitude higher than that of a person walking. Further, walking is something that everyone (with rare exception) has been doing since the age of one, and is a natural human activity, whereas driving is most definitely an acquired skill (if you don't believe me, go watch a 16-year old drive for the first time).

      Then how about riding your bicycle? Is that a right or a privilege?
      Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. It feels like more of a right than driving, but less of a privilege than walking.

      Think it's a matter of whether or not you do it on "public" property?
      No.

      If there is any property we have the right to use, it's public property. But for you to be consistent in using the "public property" argument, then walking on the sidewalk (public property) must be a privilege, not a right.
      There are pieces of public property that the public at large does not have the right to venture on, whether walking, bicycling, or driving. Various government installations are forbidden. Some activities are prohibited only in certain areas. Pedestrians and bicyclists, for example, are not allowed on Interstate highways. Cars are not allowed to drive through a fountain that people can walk through.

      Understand this: the entire point behind the founding of the U.S. was to give the people the right to do any damned thing they please so long as in doing so they don't interfere in the rights of others.
      And you don't believe that letting EVERYONE drive no matter what their age or ability (which is what you seem to desire, since you believe that driving is a right), wouldn't interfere with the rights of others? Haha. I had a friend back in high school that got in five accidents in the first couple years after getting her license (and these were all her fault, it wasn't just a run of bad luck). As far as I'm concerned, the privilege of driving is one that should be a lot harder to earn than it currently is.

    18. Re:Driving is a privilege by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      The use and enjoyment of any public creation is certainly a right until one proves by behavior to be unfit to engage in that right.

      If it's a "right until the government thinks you don't deserve it," then it wasn't really a right, but instead a privilage granted by default to those who meet the conditions.

    19. Re:Driving is a privilege by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      What makes you say that? U.S. citizens live in a country where, supposedly, our Constitution - our basic LAW - says all unenumerated rights are retained by the states and the people.

      That's why the DMVs are State organizations. The individual states are not federal, but they certainly count as "the government."

    20. Re:Driving is a privilege by Zigurd · · Score: 2

      Try the XIVth. DMVs are state jurisdictions for different reasons that what you suggest. States are no more free to abridge liberties than the federal government.

  34. This just in... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Funny

    In most states, an unmarked police car can follow you on the road and note your every movement without you even knowing about it or agreeing to it. There is no way to prevent it, and, even more scary, it is not illegal. There is not even an opt-out capability. They can use this information in court against you at any time they chose!!!

    The only way to prevent this loss of privacy is to stay at home, lock the doors, don't use the phone or cable TV, or even pick up your mail. You must remain inside at all times and out of site.

    Only then can you really enjoy your privacy. Of course, you can't enjoy anything else, but who cares. At least you can enjoy your privacy.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:This just in... by Tralfamadorian · · Score: 1

      Insightful? That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever read!

    2. Re:This just in... by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Only if they suspect you of a crime, and then its only a one shot deal. If they followed you every day (as in the records of the tolls) its an invasion of privacy.

    3. Re:This just in... by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      So basically, you only have PRIVACY when you are in PRIVATE. When you're in PUBLIC, you have no privacy. What's the problem, exactly? That you can't use public spaces without being accountable for your actions?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    4. Re:This just in... by demastri · · Score: 1
      Only if they suspect you of a crime, and then its only a one shot deal. If they followed you every day (as in the records of the tolls) its an invasion of privacy.
      Data is not information.

      Having raw location data in a db somewhere is not inherently an invasion of privacy - noone is viewing that data, therefore noone acts based on that data. Now - doing a query against that information ("give me a list of everyone who averaged 80 mph traveling from Chicago to Milwaukee" - or "what's the average number of cars on I80 between 8 and 10 am") turns that data into information. Now comes the interesting question:

      Is there an invasion of privacy?

      There's an invasion of privacy only if information about you can be singled out for lawful actions. In the first query above, single driver stats come up, but for illegal acts - no expectation of privacy, therefore no invasion. In the second query, useful demographic info is returned, but no individual info - again, no invasion.

      Your argument is analogous to saying that convenience stores can't run security cameras because not everyone's a thief. It makes no sense. In fact, it makes everyone who's not a thief potentially more secure.

      - John
    5. Re:This just in... by Moofie · · Score: 2

      Having an unmarked police car with a salaried police officer following me around doesn't bother me as much as this system monitoring tens of thousands of motorists in job lots. Automated surveillance is ALWAYS going to be mis-used. Individual surveillance may also be mis-used, but it's also far more expensive to do in large quantities.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:This just in... by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

      Never said collecting the data was in invasion of privacy, I said if they go looking for criminals in the data its an invasion of privacy. Law enforcement should be held at a higher standard when using data for criminal charges. Some states understand this, Texas for one.

      Your argument is analogous to saying that convenience stores can't run security cameras because not everyone's a thief. It makes no sense. In fact, it makes everyone who's not a thief potentially more secure.

      Pfft.

      Its more like, If the store sold your shopping lists to insurnace companies, that you smoke, drink, and eat fatty foods, and then you loose your health insurance. Or maybe you bought, rope, ammo, duct tape, and a hunting knife, and they alert the police, there goes your camping trip. Or you that you bought a gays right newsletter, and they inform your work, and you get fired.
      -
      Do you DirectVNC?

  35. Worried about speeding tickets? by kiolbasa · · Score: 1

    I don't believe that these will be used to enforce speed limits. The goal is to decongest toll booths, as more cars can get through a transponder toll booth per hour than the throw-coins-at-the-basket-and-wait-for-the-gate kind. If data is used to write tickets no one will carry the devices.

    The thing most people don't understand about enforcement of speeding tickets is that the main goal is to maximize ticket revenue, not to reduce the number of speeders on the road.

    If law enforcement writes too many speeding tickets or sets the fines too high, people might actually slow down, cutting off revenue.

    --

    Beer wants to be free
    1. Re:Worried about speeding tickets? by Inominate · · Score: 1

      States make a significant amount of money off of speeding tickets.

    2. Re:Worried about speeding tickets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a better way to decongest toll booths.

      Demolish them and pay for the roads with taxes.

      Tollways suck hard.

    3. Re:Worried about speeding tickets? by Windcatcher · · Score: 1
      Let me preface this with the statement that I'm not a cop-hater. I have several friends who are cops and others who are 9-11 dispatchers.


      That said:


      PA is (AFAIK) the only state in the Union that absolutely forbids local police officers from using radar or laser devices to watch people's speed (well, they can USE them, but then are forbidden from writing any tickets on what they may find). We could debate the why's for it forever (and indeed people here do), but I'd like to point out some effects of this policy:


      - It often takes two officers instead of one to set up a "speed trap". Of course, it depends on the road (i.e. if there is a natural hiding place), but generally, using VASCAR means that the officer is visible. Also, since there are two big, honking, WHITE LINES on the road, every local knows (or should know) what they're for. Hence, people know where speed can be enforced (if state troopers work in your area, none of this applies, of course). One way to beat this problem is to use two officers, one hidden (like on a bike, trust me, I've seen it) and one in a car (or two cars, I've seen that as well). The point is, now we're paying two people to do this job, so it's less financially attractive (though a VASCAR stopwatch costs a hell of a lot less than a radar gun) :)


      Add to that the increased time and effort involved, and the fact that most locals won't speed there anyway (like I said, lines are a BIG hint). Also, local cops are often paid overtime for this sort of thing. I won't debate the morality of the overtime, since our cops really do get paid pennies and need every bit of it that they can get (the guys I know fight over overtime and night shift differential, trust me). The point is the cost to the municipality. Kinda removes much of the temptation to frivolously watch people's speed, unless there really is a good reason. Consequently there is a lot of use of the "Your speed" displays. We don't have to pay someone to stay there all day, and they really do get people to slow down (huh, go figure).


      I like this arrangement; I think the main reason to enforce speed laws is to make sure the traffic speed is safe for that particular stretch of road (duh!). But I've seen a lot of small towns in bordering states set up speed traps seemingly just for the hell of it to try to rake in money in an area where the speed limit is (IMHO) arbitrarily lowered. It's much harder to do that in PA, if you as a driver are alert. IMHO the major reason we pay our cops is for them to show a presence (i.e. be a deterrent), and to do something about a problem if one shows up. By showing a presence I mean things like:


      - patrolling our storefronts
      - patrolling our schools, especially when kids are entering or leaving
      - patrolling our neighborhoods
      - responding to an emergency (I've heard plenty of 9-11 horror stories, heh)
      - and most importantly, varying all this, so no miscreants can predict where our cops are, so they don't know that the officer won't roll around the corner just as they're trying to pick a kid off the street. Sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun or other timing device for four hours doesn't accomplish that!!!

    4. Re:Worried about speeding tickets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means RAISE TAXES. Great.

    5. Re:Worried about speeding tickets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already are. Pass a NJ EZPass toll over 5 MPH, get a ticket in the mail.

      Fail to belive all you want. The goal is money, only money, and will continue to be money. Any, and all, means will be used by the government to seperate you from it.

  36. Point A - B ticketing system in Australia already by Nazghal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some years back i was involved in the Safe T Cam system in australia, which is basically a road safety system for heavy vehicles. It was actually a little more sinister than tag tracking. It used some logic to identify the "size" of an oncoming vehicle, and for large vehicles it would use OCR to identify the number plate. This was logged along with a time stamp, across the state there were several such points. If the same number plate was identified at two distant points within a certain time, alarms were triggered. These were then used to investigate the driver in questions log books (truck drivers must take certain rest breaks by law, and over large interstate distances, getting from point A to B in a certain time meant they were either speeding, or not taking mandatory breaks or both). While the ticketing wasnt automatic, it is only a short step from it, and for that matter it could theoretically by turned on for all vehicles quite easily..

    Big brother watches...

  37. Re:Really by gpinzone · · Score: 2

    In Soviet Russia, cars drive you!

  38. They won't use it to issue tickets by signe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quite simply, any jurisdiction that even has a fraction of a brain will not use an electronic toll system to issue tickets. If they do, people will stop using the electronic toll system. It's just that simple. The toll authority has just as much of an interest in having people use the electronic toll system as people do in using it to save time. More people using the electronic system means fewer people employed taking tolls and less traffic. They won't jeopardize that.

    As far as tracking people using the transponders, I don't know that it's that bad a thing. Like they said, you can always avoid tracking by putting your transponder in a foil bag, and they're even going to provide them upon request (It's not a pain in the ass. I have two transponders, and they're only on the windshield when I am going through a tollbooth, because I have a convertible). That should show goodwill, at the very least. And California does have some of the worst traffic in the country. Any additional info on how it moves (or doesn't) is probably going to go a long way towards making it better.

    -Todd

    --
    "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
    1. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by demaria · · Score: 2

      Two points.
      1) Could they require use of transponder?
      2) They could encode time data on the tickets so that not using the transponder wouldn't gain you anything.

    2. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by signe · · Score: 2

      1) How are they going to do that with out of state drivers and the like? Unless there is a single ETC system for the country and you don't need a credit card to get a transponder, that's not going to happen.

      2) Yes, but that requires a toll system that uses tickets. Most toll systems don't (at least in my experience). A ticket system like that requires greater overhead, because you need both entrance and exit tolls.

      -Todd

      --
      "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
    3. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Quite simply, any jurisdiction that even has a fraction of a brain will not use an electronic toll system to issue tickets.

      Which means ALL of them WILL use it, since you'd be hard pressed to name any jurisdiction that has anything close a fraction of a brain. Not when travel taxes^H^H^H^H "speeding fines" are being levied.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      In fact, I think that given the traffic commission's mandate to reduce congestion, their best response would not be "here's your ticket" but rather "How'd you do that?!?" :)

      --

      ~~~~~~~
      "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    5. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by ThreeHamsWillKillHim · · Score: 1
      As a california driver, I take issue with this for 2 reasons:

      First, I moved here from Phoenix, AZ. There, they have pressure sensors in the road. Those record the speed of EVERYONE passing over them, in an anonymous way. In fact, check this out. You can view (near) realtime stats on the web, for phoenix area traffic.

      Second of all, and my first point touched on this, how valid will this data be? I mean, what percentage of drivers have transponders? And is that an even distribution along all traffic routes? I mean, i can almost guarentee that people that travel from Tracy to Pleasanton, for instance (Highway 580, no toll bridges) will have a much less number of transponders than people that travel over bridges to get to work.

      I smell bullshit, and if I step in some, i'll just give my transponder back.

    6. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by signe · · Score: 2

      Well, as far as the validity of the data, the toll authorities do know what percentage of drivers have transponders, at least the percentage of drivers on their roads. They know how many vehicles travel through the tollbooths, and they know whether those vehicles are trucks, cars, motorcycles, cars with trailers, etc.

      It doesn't really need to be even distribution if their primary purpose is to provide updated traffic information to other drivers. All they need to know is "Hey, it looks like a bunch of cars are stopped here. There must be a problem." Boston's actually installing thousands of sensors of varying types in the new Big Dig roads for this very purpose.

      If they want to do more in-depth trending of traffic patterns, I don't think that even distribution is neccessary to be able to use the data (please, some statistics major correct me if I'm wrong here). If they know the percentage of cars that have transponders versus those that don't, they should have a large enough sample set that they can make reasonable assumptions about the distribution of cars.

      As far as using the transponders versus other sensors like pressure sensors, I do agree with you in the theoretical sense. And if CA were building roads from scratch, I would question their motives if they didn't choose something like pressure sensors in the roads. However, in a retrofit, it's a lot easier to install transponder sensors above the road than it is to install pressure sensors in the road.

      -Todd

      --
      "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
    7. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by ShoeHead · · Score: 1

      On one of the toll roads near where I went to highschool, police were *unable* to give speeding tickets. At worst, they could stop you and give a warning, but no tickets. Anyone know of other roads with similar rules?

    8. Re:They won't use it to issue tickets by CPT+Carl · · Score: 1

      I've read this article and I've been reviewing this thread after many, many, people have posted. I'm sure someone's already rasied this point, but I must still bring it to the fore:

      Problems with potential misuse of the ETC systems? How about just ripping out the friggin' tolls!!

      Seriously, the current bulk of electronic transponder data comes from its implementation in toll roads. Do away with tolls, and the transponders go too! Toll roads are a completely outdated concept and only are still in place to serve politicians to garner support from and provide benefit to special intreset groups (read that as "toll collectors union"). They cause worse traffic by having cars artificially slow down and generate more pollution with cars idling in toll lanes.

      Get rid of big brother and his toll monitoring by completely eliminating tolls!!!

      And for you readers in New Jersey:
      http://www.EndTolls.com

      --
      THIS SPACE FOR RENT Call 1-800-555-CARL
  39. Tickets n' stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone so worried about this changing into issuing tickets and stuff? If you are speeding or other stuff, you deserve to get caught.

    1. Re:Tickets n' stuff by coryboehne · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of application or consequence. It's a matter of privacy. This whole thread is'nt really about tickets at all, it's about being tracked while you drive, and whether or not it's going to be used in a privacy invading setup.

  40. Calculus by AJWM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That reminds me of a really strange movie we saw back in first year calculus class. (Yeah, movies in math class. Weird in itself.)

    Had to do with just such a situation, with the driver being referred to the cop for speeding. The trooper proceeds to explain Rolle's Theorem and Mean Value Theorem to the driver as proof that somewhere in between the two toll booths, he had to have been speeding.

    I guess to the extent that I remember the name of Rolle's Theorem, the movie served its purpose. OTOH it always seemed kind of intuitively obvious to me.

    --
    -- Alastair
  41. Re:Point A - B ticketing system in Australia alrea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe commercial truck drivers should be monitored in such a way.

    In generally commercial drivers are a lot better drivers than the average person on the road, but by acting irresponsibly they create significant risk for everyone...

  42. funny that noone posted something like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they'll never track my troll transposters anyway

  43. It's Much, Much Simpler Than That by Sandlund · · Score: 1

    On toll roads such as the New Jersey Turnpike or the New York Thruway, the government could be giving away tickets very easily if chose to do so. Just divide the distance bewteen two tool booths by the difference between the time stamps for entering and exiting the toll road. Voila. Miles per hour -- and an instant gauge of who's speeding. (Warranted, a quick stop at the rest stop would foil it.)

    Now, there have been private rental firms that have used GPS to determine how fast you're going. But to the best of my knowledge, no government has yet issued tickets with this simplistic routine. Why? No one would stand for it.

  44. Wait wait wait by sielwolf · · Score: 2

    If you can take them down and not have them track you... how is this now an invasion of privacy? I mean you could just not have one (or do as another user suggested and ride a bike).

    I mean it must be such an inconvenience to do a way with this convenience but c'mon!

    A person can't blame invasion of privacy on such a blatant example of laziness.

    --
    What is music when you despise all sound?
  45. Re:vehicle ID transponder installed by manufacture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already coming, once OBD-III comes into effect. It's in the Clean Air Act of 1990. You all demanded it be passed.

  46. Port Authority and EZ-Pass by gpinzone · · Score: 2

    When I worked for the NYC Transit Authority, I once saw a demonstration of a similar system they were demoing using the EZ-Pass. One of the features was that the system purposefully ignored the EZ-Pass owner's identity when culling the statistical data. It seemed a bit silly to me since your identity can still going to be discovered by simply looking in the billing database instead, but at least they had the right attitude.

    FYI, MetroCards are a little more private since there's no way to match up a serial number with an individual unless you pay by credit card, have a picture ID MetroCard (e.g., Seniors, Disabled, student, etc.), or are found with the card in your possession.

  47. request a partial refund! by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    You used the road for less time than was paid for.

    You need to request a discount!

  48. um... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

    ....how exactly would this info be *really* useful? I mean - yes I know that it would be able to show that John D. Rapist drove over the Golden Gate bridge at precisely 11:12pm last night with Suzy Victim in his trunk blah blah....

    but thats not very much information.

    the thing that makes this even less of a worry (in this specific instance) is that very very few people actually travel through tolls daily (as compared with the population of the country) and those that do make up the 95% "repeat offenders" (people who travel across the bridge every single day)

    I live in the south bay - I am surrounded by toll bridges - but I very very rarely cross them. If I do its on my way to tahoe where I pay the 2 bux to continue on after crossing the Benicia bridge.

    Other than that I might make a trip every other month or so across the bay bridge... but for the most part my entire travel corridor is I-280....

    so aside from Big Brother is tracking your every move - which is a Bad Thing (TM) - this doesnt warrant any concern on my part - at least until they start tracking my moves through embeded chips in my drivers license.

  49. But what the hell is a by PissingInTheWind · · Score: 1
    troll transponder?

    And why do California cares about trolls?

    --

    A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
  50. Meanwhile in the test-department... by jukal · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Guvf vf n grfg ba lbh zbqrengbef. Qverpg zbavgbevat bs genssvp fbhaqf cerggl pb by, ohg fbzr crbcyr qba'g jnag gurve gbyy genafcbaqref genpxrq. Gurl nera'g vaf gnyyvat qverpg qevire genpxvat sbe ynj rasbeprzrag abj, ohg gur pbyyrpgrq qngn pbhyq or fhocbranrq. Bs pbhefr, nalbar jub qvqa'g jnag gb or genpxrq pbhyq whfg chg vg va gur tybirobk naljnl, fb gurl jba'g or pngpuvat pyrire srybaf be genp xvat erny cnenabvnpf."

  51. Saw this on TV by CXI · · Score: 1

    An old episode of Law & Order use subpoenaed toll information in New York to catch a person in a lie about their alibi. Anyway, just goes to show that someone has already thought of doing it.

  52. a list of future problems coming up by bons · · Score: 4, Funny

    More people who appear to be tollway violators because they didn't pull their transponder out soon enough.

    Transponder mod chips for random serial numbers.

    People on cell phones pulling out transponders as they try to get through the booth.

    People setting up their own silent tracking antennas and keeping all information.

    Transponder mod chips with serial numbers belonging to people tracked with the previous method.

    Beowolf transponder clusters to make it look like you're a traveling traffic jam.

  53. Not personally identifiable by alanjstr · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're paranoid, they'll give you a mylar storage bag for free. Otherwise, the serial numbers will be encrpyted and seperate from the data. Not only that, but "All record of serials numbers stored in electronic files will be destroyed daily, leaving only general averages and patterns for later study," Berman said.

  54. Experience by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    Here in my home town (on the east coast) the roads are saturated with tolls. The local gov't decided to offer 'fast lane' toll lanes, that use toll transponders for quicker travel. I thought it'd be a great idea to get one, then I started reading through the form you had to fill out to get one. They were asking *way* too much personal information (marital status, # of children, income level, etc etc etc) for a simple toll transponder.

    In fact, it looked like they were trying to gather as much info as possible, for what purpose god only knows (but I'm sure it's not for our best interests)

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  55. Okay by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    So, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. Fair enough.

    Therefore, we should all wear tracking devices so the government knows exactly where we are at any given time, except when we are in a private place... after all, you have no expectation of privacy, right?

    1. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no expectation that you will ever get a date, or that you will ever get your head removed from your butt.

    2. Re:Okay by Ironica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like, if we choose to wear a device that broadcasts our information in order to make transactions faster and easier, we shouldn't necessarily expect that that information won't have other uses in the aggregate.

      It's like if you shout your phone number across a crowded room at a friend, and then get mad at a stranger for hearing it. You make a choice what information to make public; but once you do, you don't always get to choose what happens to it.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    3. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, way to rip into his comment about that everyone should wear tracking devices. Wait a minute, that's not what he fucking said! At all!

      Why don't you either respond to what he actually said, or shut the fuck up?

    4. Re:Okay by khuber · · Score: 1
      Why don't you either respond to what he actually said, or shut the fuck up?

      Toast with peanut butter.

      -Kevin

  56. Re:Not personally identifiable... For now... by Inominate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every single time any government agency says this, they simply mean "Untill you get used to it, and ignore it's existence. We'll gladly start tracking you once we think we can get away with it"

  57. Houston Tracking Respects Privacy by naloxone · · Score: 4, Informative

    Houston has its own traffic tracking system that operates in a similar fashion. When I first realized that they were using the toll-tags to calculate this, I became concerned about the privacy issues (especially given that this use is technically a violation of the license agreement). So I called a friend of mine at the Texas Transportation Institute and asked about it.

    And lo and behold, they actually turn out to take the privacy aspect very seriously. When an EZ-Tag (TM) passes under a sensor, it gets assigned an id. When it passes under the next sensor, it calculates the speed, adds it to the database with this generated id (not the toll tag number). And then it assigns it a new ID for the trip to the next sensor. Thus, TTI is incapable of knowing, even under threat of subpoena, the identity of any car passing down the highway or the route of any single vehicle beyond any single highway segment. The entire system is designed to prevent it.

  58. use cash by lingqi · · Score: 2

    really huh? is it *that* much a problem to use cash?

    with a toll transponder you have to slow down to like 5mph *anyway*, not like certain (fairly old) VW commercial showing somebody in a passat zooming by at 40.

    cash is not going away anytime soon -- there are always people from out-of state who have no transponders, and then there are trucks with multi-axles etc.

    i would see that as a much more permanent solution than "put it in the glove box" whatever. in the end -- which one gives you less trouble? taking the transponder out from the passenger side every time you pass a toll, and worry about privacy issues, or simply take out your wallet when you pass a toll?

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:use cash by Jonathan_S · · Score: 1

      with a toll transponder you have to slow down to like 5mph *anyway*, not like certain (fairly old) VW commercial showing somebody in a passat zooming by at 40.
      --

      Not where I live; Northern Virginia. You can go through the toll booth at up to or greater than the speed limit and it will still read your transponder every time. The sign for the SmartTag lanes only says speed limit 20 mph, but I've seen people go through and be accepted at up to 70 or so. (15 over the road's speed limit)

    2. Re:use cash by buzzsport · · Score: 1

      The 5pm (or 15/20mph) limit is not because of the technology -- which is actually rated to read the tags at 80mph+. It is to make sure that someone crossing the toll lane on foot (attendant / motorist) doesn't get squashed like a bug.

    3. Re:use cash by JoeF · · Score: 1

      No, at least here in Southern CA you do not have to slow down. I drive through the toll lanes with the full allowed speed without problems.

    4. Re:use cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, yet another slashdot poster who has no kids. Oh, wait....

  59. Slippery Slope Time! by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1, Troll

    Go ahead and mark me troll, but...

    You know what's going to happen... some genius in the state Assembly or state Senate will get the idea that all cars sold in CA should have transponders for traffic reporting purposes...

    Of course, this will be put somewhere that the driver can't easily get to it...

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  60. You're only paranoid ... by RgnadKzin · · Score: 1

    ... if no one is really out to get you.

    paranoia Pronunciation Key (pr-noi)
    n.
    A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
    Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

    If there is someone persecuting you, then you cannot be paranoid. qed

    --
    Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
  61. Another way that "they" can get you. by FrankieBoy · · Score: 1

    I heard that one proposed use of the toll transponders is to time you between entry and exit on the highway. If your average speed to get between the two points is faster then the speed limit then you'll receive an automatic ticket in the mail. Ain't technology grand!

    1. Re:Another way that "they" can get you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to be redundant. Did you not read the 100 other comments exactly like yours?

    2. Re:Another way that "they" can get you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bite me.

  62. EZpass'ers have an even easier hack... by d3vpsaux · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know how the transponders are distro'd in California, but with New York's EZpass, (and I'm sure any other EZpass coverage areas) we receive the device in a metal-oxide "static-free" bag, of which we are informed, "If you do not wish to use your EZpass for a toll, place the device in the metal-oxide bag provided and place in glove box."

    So the simple solution: Leave it on your window for the toll, remove it after leaving the booths, and replace it when you need to leave the highway...

  63. Technolgy should be designed like a dog by hillbilly1980 · · Score: 1
    the more i think about it the more i wonder why companies not create gadgets and devices with the my best friend mentality. Anything i buy should in the end be ultimatly loyal to me, like my dog. DVD players should let me play whatever content i want, because i want it to do that, toll trackers should not report to information transponders if i dont' want it to.


    These are all devices that we have boughten to make our life easier, just as when people began to use animals to make their life easier. However the differnce is companies and government are going to all length to restrict these devices uses, and expand their information reporting. I like the way pioneer approachs products. When they started selling a cd copier and got guff from the music industery, they simply stated that they made what consumers wanted, and the device can be used for whatever purpose the consumer decides.


    The problem seems to be we are already on a slippery slope, and most likely too far gone, a slope that started back when car manufactures we told to install governace devices for speeding. When a society begins to transfer the moral conscience of the time into its technology that moral conscience is much harder to root out in the future, because it hardcoded and unbendable. And humans by nature adapt to these rules. Government and socieaty as a whole has to rediscover its own indiviual conscience, or else more and more we will place taht job in the hands of our technology. And as individuals we will become a society we're individuals don't adhere to their own moral code but rather one that is dictated by strict rules created by a then gone past generations.

    --
    If you can't fix it ask the 3 year old down the street.
  64. isnt it ironic by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    you're a flaming asshole who is rallying against privacy, yet...

    you have a "donate to the eff" signature.

    asshole.

    --
    ... hi bingo ...
    1. Re:isnt it ironic by NeMon'ess · · Score: 2

      I support PETA but I wear leather shoes and would get a leather interior car. Just because many members of PETA are vegetarian or vegan doesn't mean I have to be as well. Its possible to support the eff while disagreeing with some of the positions the eff might take. I happen to think annonyminity in public is a good thing, but privacy in public is unrealistic.

  65. Great, another way spam will be used by TrollsamaBinLaden · · Score: 2, Funny

    You cell phone rings and you hear, feeling hungry? There is a Mcdonalds a mile from your current location on the left!

  66. Jersey Turnpike by b0bby · · Score: 1

    I was talking to an off-duty PG County MD cop one time & he was telling me about getting a ticket on the Jersey turnpike because they calculated the speed between entry & exit. He wasn't happy that they didn't let off a cop... though he apparently did get let off after wheelying his bike, drunk, in front of the Capitol & crashing.

    1. Re:Jersey Turnpike by Krimsen · · Score: 2

      was this before or after 9/11? also, when you say in front of the Capitol, do you mean in DC?

  67. Won't be around too long. by A.Soze · · Score: 1

    What happens to the automatic ticketing the first time a Senator or House member gets a ticket? I guarantee that the use of such enforcement will evaporate overnight.

    Teddy Kennedy alone could fund a medium size metroplex, after all...

    --
    "Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
  68. It will never be used for traffic enforcement by Reverberant · · Score: 1

    I work in the transportation industry, and I've seen many demonstrations of "intellegent" traffic monitoring capabailities. At each one of these gatherings, someone always asks the DOT rep "can this be used for traffic enforcement?" and the DOT rep always gives the same answer:

    Yes the capability for traffic enforcement exists, but it won't be implemented for one simple reason - if the systems are used for traffc enforcement, people who are cited for traffic violations will be able to subpoena info from the DOT, and the DOT's do not want to divert their budgets to chasing after subpoenas! The DOT's don't want to get into the business of traffic enforcement for revenue enchancement, because in the end, it will cause more harm then good.

    Move along, nothing to see here...

    1. Re:It will never be used for traffic enforcement by VB · · Score: 1


      The DOT's don't want to get into the business of traffic enforcement for revenue enchancement

      Let's assume you meant revenue enhancement, since that is precisely one of the most interesting things to civil servants aside from the other interesting thing that is "cost abatement." They're government agencies with finite budgets and increasing demands trying to stay in their elected / appointed positions. If the cops can find ways to "enhance" their budget using technology already available from another government agency, you don't think DOTs would exploit them? They most certainly would!

      The only way to secure citizens' rights with these emerging technologies is to design them so it's technically impossible for cross-polination of data. Sad to say, but securing citizen's rights ceased to be a public servants priority about 11 months ago...

      --
      www.dedserius.com
      VB != VisualBasic
  69. Re:Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On fark, all your dead horse are belong to you!

  70. How about a prepaid anonymous EZ-Pass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about if I stop at a convenience store and pay cash for a prepaid EZ-Pass with $20 of tolls on it?

    Then it would be fine for the pass to have a unique identifier, because that wouldn't be tied to me.

  71. Why is this news? by shdragon · · Score: 1

    I live in Houston and they have been tracking traffic like this for YEARS now. They even have a website where you can go and view the current traffic condtions. It's actually a REALLY REALLY helpful system since I normally have to drive about an hour to get to work, and this system often keeps me from being stuck in traffic. Also, they have webcams where you can view the current traffic live.

    --
    "...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
    1. Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA (Read the fucking article)

      The article is talking about tracking the individual users that have tollway tags, not traffic as a whole. Retard.

  72. Radar versus Tornado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of this Urban Legend about radar guns and fighter aircraft.

  73. Hashed Identities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to an interview with the hapless Cal Trans IT guy on the ch3 11pm news last night, they are crytographically hashing the transponder ids and only tracking the hash. Without knowing more about how they do that, it's hard to tell if this is enough or not, but it seems that someone thought the problem and tried to address the privacy issues. I give them credit for that. Just would like more info on how they manage the hash - e.g. how do they assure hand-offs of the hash from receiver to receiver yet prevent matching the hash by simply hashing the existing issued transponder id list somewhere else. It needs some sort of public key or zero knowledge mechanism to prevent a backdoor.

  74. This won't solve traffic congestion by guttentag · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The traffic sensor system, which should begin operating next month, will make it possible to provide realtime information about some of the nation's worst congestion to drivers through their cell phones, over the airwaves and on the Internet, and gather better data for transportation planners.
    In theory, it can only be effective if it does not provide drivers with the real-time data.

    Let's say this system goes into effect, and it can track traffic in real time and provide that data to the people who are causing the traffic. Everyone on the road figures he's smarter than the drivers around him (I can confirm this mentality is the norm in Northern California, where this is being implemented). Drivers on US 101 simultaneously get a report from their cell phones that they're facing bumper-to-bumper traffic from Moffett Field to University Ave, and people respond by getting off the highway and flooding Middlefield Road, which runs parallel to 101. Only this causes Middlefield to become even more congested than 101 (which is still congested because Middlefield just can't handle that much traffic). So some people abandon Middlefield to go back to 101, causing more problems, while a steady stream of cars begins to work its way through the side streets around Middlefield. The end result is that no one really gets to their destination any faster (this actually increases travel time for many people as they hop between routes).

    More importantly, the data becomes useless. If the drivers had not been supplied with the raw traffic information, they would have followed predictable traffic patterns that could be studied to determine where roads need to be widened or otherwise changed (any Bay Area commuters familiar with the northern end of 85 can already tell you where roads need to be changed). Since the otherwise sheep-like traffic now has thousands of minds of its own, the result is chaotic traffic in which patterns constantly change unpredictably as people try to adapt. Therefore patterns cannot be studied and the flow of traffic will not improve.

    Ideally, the system should analyze the patterns without providing raw data to the drivers and suggest that drivers whose license numbers end in 4 or 8 take Middlefield, drivers whose license numbers end in 5, 6 or 7 should take 280 if possible, and everyone else should stay on 101. Intelligently-managed traffic is better than chaotic traffic.

    1. Re:This won't solve traffic congestion by YoJ · · Score: 2

      I don't think your argument works. If all drivers have perfect knowledge of road conditions, and make completely rational choices about which routes to take, then the job of the people analyzing traffic becomes easier. They just choose the most congested area and widen it. If the drivers didn't have perfect knowledge, then this might actually create more problems than it solves (since drivers might irrationally choose the big freeway even though it gets them to their destination more slowly).

    2. Re:This won't solve traffic congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see two problems with your conclusion:

      People will attempt to adapt to road conditions regardless of how much
      information you feed them. People will try to take side streets if
      the highway is clogged up, etc.

      At least around here, the real time traffic systems available don't
      create some sort of sheep like moving traffic problems. They let you
      know where the slow spots are on the highways, usually due to
      accidents, and avoid them. The people avoiding the problem don't
      create another problem somewhere else.

  75. Why speed isn't tracked by dutky · · Score: 5, Informative
    I work for one of the two main ETC (Electronic Toll Collection) companies and there is a reason that the state and local agencies don't try to track speed using the toll records: they wound never be able to make the speeding tickets stick. There are basically three problems with trying to issue speeding tickets based on toll transponder data:
    1. The date and time on the toll transactions are not very exact. We try to keep all the computers in the lanes synchronized, but we don't do that great a job of it. If speeding tickets were issued to clients based on the computed travel time between entry and exit, the clients could simply claim that the entry and exit times weren't correct (and they'd be right).

    2. The toll tag doesn't tell us anything about who was driving the car, or, for that matter, what car was being driven (unless there is a violation in the toll lane itself, in which case we take a picture of the back bumper, so we can identify the vehicle and license plate. We still can't tell who was driving).

      With the red light cameras, the ticket is assessed against the vehicle (like a parking ticket) rather than against the driver's license (as with most speeding tickets) and the red light cameras get some proof that the ticketed vehicle was involved. With a calculated speeding ticket, however, there is no such proof. Again, the accused could simply say that neither they, nor their car, was on the road at that time, and there'd be no way to disprove it.

    3. Finally, local agencies really don't want to piss of their clients. The reason for using the toll tags is to both increase collected toll revenue (there are lots of ways to lose toll revenue when cash is involved) and to better control traffic. If you penalize people for using the toll tags, you lose the ability to do the stuff you really want to do.

    There is one other technical issue with trying to issue speeding tickets based on ETC data: most ETC systems don't collect enough data to make the calculation.

    There are, basically, two types of toll facilities: boundry systems, where you get charged a toll each time you cross a boundry, and closed-loop systems, where you get charged based on the length of travel in the toll system. You can only calculate speed in a closed loop system, when both your entry and exit are recorded. Many toll systems are only boundry systems.

    Even on a closed loop system, you can only calculate the average speed in the system. Under heavy traffic conditions, the average speed is likely never to exceed the posted speed limit! (this is the sad truth about speeding: it rarely benefits the speed but, occasionally, it is a great harm to an innocent bystander) You can pretty easily wipe out the extra time you gained by speeding while waiting to at the exit toll plaza.

    Note, some agencies do issue fines for speeding thorugh the toll lanes, but that is a safety issue. None of the agencies that we work with issue actual speeding tickets based on speed in the toll lane. Also, many of the agencies maintain a constant police presence at the toll plazas, in order to go after violators. This was true even before there were ETC systems.

    The ETC tags are pretty good for collecting information on what happens at the toll plazas. We can even get a fair amount of agregate information about the entire toll facility itself, based on plaza activity. But it is very difficult to extract information about individuals based on ETC data. The agencies seem to have a pretty good understanding of what the ETC data is good for and what legal limitations they are under.

    One example to illustrate this point: Some of the original ETC installations took pictures of violators from in front of the vehicle, including a picture of the driver and passenger in the front seat. Now, however, we only take pictures of the front and rear bumpers, specifically avoiding either front or rear windshield.

    The reason is a legal one. Early on in the history of ETC systems a law suit was brought against one of the local agencies because a driver had violated the toll lane and had his picture taken. The violation notice was mailed to his house, where it was opened by his wife. His wife was quite upset to find a picture of her husband and a strange woman driving in his car in the middle of the day!

    The local agencies are now prevented, legally, from invading a driver's privacy by photographing the driver or passengers of a vehicle passing thorugh an ETC system. (We still get some interesting pictures, but only when the driver's have gone out of their way to make themselves visible to the lane cameras)

    1. Re:Why speed isn't tracked by Above · · Score: 2

      While I think your comments are fairly accurate, I think most people on here will think #1 and #2 is bogus.

      #1 - Over a long distance second accuracy is more than enough. With free software and/or GPS receivers able to offer milisecond accuracy, I'm sure it would be trival to get things really syncronized and be able to compute times accurate within a second or two. Over a 10+ mile run that would not be enough variation to get out of a ticket.

      #2 - Once #1 is completed, making the hardware compute the time on the fly, and photo all "speeders" plates would be trivial. Still issues with the drivers, but I can't believe a positive id on the car would be difficult at all.

      I'm sure #3 is the biggest issue, by far.

  76. Don't trust the tollway. Don't take the tollway. by e_n_d_o · · Score: 2

    I live in Southern California (we're next), and have one of the FasTrack transponders. Due to my limited usage of the toll roads, I originally elected not to get a FasTrack and instead pay the 50 cent surcharge for using cash.

    Having used cash for about a month, one day I got a letter in the mail fining me $25 for running a toll booth. Having done no such thing, I called the TCA and requested more information on the violation. They stated that I had run the "cash lane," where the booth actually is attended by an tollway employee who takes your cash. On the date and time in question, I had been on the tollway where the violation supposedly occurred.

    Their story was that I simply drove right through the toll booth. They had a picture of the license plate of my truck, and correctly identified its make/model based on that picture. The attendant even had to manually push a button in order for the picture to be taken and the violation issued. The attendant was supposedly a senior tollway employee, and as such they stated that it was very likely his story was correct.

    After spending between 2-3 hours with the tollway attendant, and (legitimately) indicating that if they did not undo this ticket we would be in court, they removed the violation and required me only to pay the $3 toll.

    As a result of this incident, I decided to obtain a FasTrack transponder. I've used it about five times in the past four months (my tollway usage has dropped almost to zero since this incident). At this point it probably makes sense to give them back their transponder.

  77. automatic speeding tickets by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

    if they were to log the times of cars leaving and arriving at the next toll both, and calculate the avg speed (easy enough) you could issue speeding tickets very easily. if the speed limit is 65 and my avg. speed from toll to toll is 76 then they know i MUST have gone over the speed limit (10 mph over) at some point. (yay for calculus --the proof at least)

    QED

    --
    BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
    1. Re:automatic speeding tickets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever heard of "speed of necessity?"

    2. Re:automatic speeding tickets by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

      a joke perhaps?

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
  78. One subpoena can change that by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Yes, right now they're probably not tracking individuals, except at tollbooths for billing purposes, and they're using encrypted forms of the user ids for their traffic-flow monitoring, and they destroy any personally-identifiable data after 24 hours. This is really nice, but the first subpoena or court order they get can change it, especially the data destruction part. Good intentions are good, but I don't expect them to act like Julf Helsingius and fold up their service the first time they get a court order that prevents them from protecting their users' privacy.

    The encryption part is potentially very interesting technically, and I don't expect an average newspaper article to get the details correct down to crypto-geek level :-) Chaum's Digicash technology could provide the privacy necessary to do toll collection privately, but isn't useful for traffic flow (where you want to be able to correlate separate transactions.) You could hash the userIDs along with a daily random key, which would still be susceptible to dictionary attacks if the daily numbers are retained, but would otherwise be somewhat secure. You get much better privacy if you hash the userID down to a value that's shorter than the number of userIDs (limits dictionary search attacks), but that makes it hard to track cars if you overdo it.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  79. Isn't it Alanis? [1] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [*]Joebob spent a good five minutes explaining how, a devout man like Charleton Heston argued with the script writers to leave the line intact. Chuck's rational was that Taylor was truly asking God to take the men responsible for destroying the Earth and condemn them to Hell.

    Immediatly after Joebob explained this bit of movie history, TBS, in their infinite corporate wisdom, bleeped the line.


    [1]The subject line of my post is my hip, new label for people who don't understand what irony really is.

  80. That's nothing... by PastorOfMuppets · · Score: 1
    Here in Washington, they're is considering putting a small GPS device in all new licence plates (we have to get new plates every few years) so they can tax us for the number of miles we drive.** Talk about potential for abuse.

    **The last I heard of this was a year ago, so hopefuly they decided not to do it.

    --
    If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
  81. Anonymous isn't Not secure enough by billstewart · · Score: 2
    • First of all, if you force everybody to have one, it's almost guaranteed that they won't be anonymous - governments just don't work that way, and there are too many potential uses for the things.
    • For traffic flow measurement, you don't need *everybody* to have one anyway - a few percent are enough to get traffic measurements.
    • If you always have a transponder with a consistent key, even if it's anonymous, it's easy to build up a history of location records, so if they get your ID, it's easy to trace *you* - and they cna walk up to your driveway and scan your car.
    • Tollbooths have cameras to read license plates, and they have transponders. Even without increasingly-practical optical character recognition, it's easy enough to hire a bunch of convicts to read license plate numbers from the pictures. San Francisco did this a few years ago when they were going to close one of the freeways - they read the plates from a week's traffic and sent everybody a postcard telling them to find a different route to work.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  82. Happened to Goldstien by Ashcrow · · Score: 1

    Goldstien (editor of 2600) found out he was being tracked via the toll system in New York a few years ago. It's not just in California!

  83. They can't track speeds in california with FasTrak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi.. I've commuted across bay area bridges before, and I see the FasTrak (sp) on the toll booth, but not on the other side. You can leave the san mateo bridge, for example, pulling 85 and there's no scanner waiting for you, cept for the occasional CHiPs at the end with his handy little radar. This is probably due to the fact that CA freeways are actually FREE (and congested as hell), so you don't need to check in with someone at the other side. :)
    As far as traking times and dates you passed through when you were not supposed to, it all depends on the stupidity of the driver. If you're doing something you are not supposed to, be a little mindful of things that can be used to track you and well, don't use them!

    --Jason

  84. Did someone say Troll roads??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ohh.

  85. Tollways and speeding tickets based on timestamps by Nonesuch · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There were rumors that the Indiana Toll Road authority would issue speeding tickets to drivers based on the time taken to get from your on-ramp (where you are issued a ticket showing where you entered the system) to your exit ramp (where your toll fee is calculated based on the distance from where you entered.

    We avoided the issue by always "losing" the ticket between where we entered and the exit ramp. The "lost ticket" penalty was that you pay the maximum toll fee, which was fine by us, as that was the toll we would be paying even if we hadn't "lost" the ticket.

    My theory is that the rumors were started to increase toll revenues :)

    dutky from the Toll Collection Agency writes:

    Even on a closed loop system, you can only calculate the average speed in the system. Under heavy traffic conditions, the average speed is likely never to exceed the posted speed limit! (this is the sad truth about speeding: it rarely benefits the speed but, occasionally, it is a great harm to an innocent bystander) You can pretty easily wipe out the extra time you gained by speeding while waiting to at the exit toll plaza.
    Faulty logic. Yes, I "wipe out the extra time ... gained by speeding" from the wait to exit at the toll plaza.

    Except, the guy who doesn't speed is going to have taken that much longer to arrive at the exit, and will have exactly the same wait as I did!

    So if I drive 85 on the toll road and wait five minutes to exit my average speed for the trip drops below 55. But the guy who drove 55 for the same distance waits the same five minutes...

    By the "speed kills" logic, we should just set the maximum speed on all public roads to 5 MPH so as to all but eliminate deaths from pedestrian-vehicle accidents.

  86. Toll roads are a scam anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would much prefer if they just got rid of all tolls and raised the tax on gasoline to make up for the lost money. Why should some roads be free and others toll? It doesn't make any sense. Also I hate trying to find coins in my car.

  87. Not All Laws are Correct... by E-Rock · · Score: 2

    nt

  88. What is invasion, and what is information? by Ironica · · Score: 1

    This community feels very strongly about freedom of information. Just take a look at the reaction when someone says "DMCA." Yet, people are in a tizzy because the government has decided to use information that people *voluntarily* give them in a new and more organized way.

    If you sign up on a website, do you not expect them to use your demographic data in making content and advertising decisions? Here's news if you don't: that's exactly why they want it.

    But, let's look at it this way. People seem upset because this is information that can't normally be gained unless you have the right readers, which previously have only been in toll booths. Now, that same information (or less) is being collected in other locations, and reported in different ways... and that is an invasion of privacy.

    But, is it an invasion to record your license plate?

    Because, that's what one similar traffic system does in the UK... it uses license plate recognition to get average traffic speeds. Just like the new receivers in the Bay Area, they calculate the time it takes each vehicle to go between two points, but instead of using a transponder that you put in your car, they use license plate recognition. The system works very nicely; drivers can subscribe to a service and have a nifty little screen on their dashboard telling them upcoming road conditions. It automatically screens out cars that appear to have stopped along the way, too.

    So, what's the difference between requiring you to have a license plate visible on your car, and using technology to look at it? Is it the same as the difference between owning a copyrighted piece of software, and being able to reverse engineer it (look at it with different technology)? In other words... not much difference, unless you're the one being scrutinized?

    Compare what you ask of others with what you ask of yourself. Really think hard about this, because I think I'm detecting a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  89. I've got to add something here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, staying inside and out
    of sight won't be enough. A couple
    of years ago, the courts said that
    it was OK to use devices that can
    do remote sensing to "see" inside
    someone's house!

    The case involved someone growing
    pot in their attic, or whatnot, and
    the law enforcement authorities
    used some long wavelength IR gear
    to try to see what was going on...

  90. So, let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You finally get that Ferrari you have been lusting after, and you are only going to drive it at or below the speed limit? Me thinks you are too young to drive. (if not then you should not be allowed to drive)

  91. Driving is not a privilege. by e_n_d_o · · Score: 2

    From the dictionary:

    privilege: A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden; a prerogative; advantage; franchise.

    "Driving is a privilege, not a right" is one of those statements that somehow became commonly accepted because thousands of ignorant people repeated it.

    My state allows me to drive on its public road system, which I contribute a portion of my income to maintaining. I am in fact guaranteed the use of that system if I obey certain requirements that myself and other citizens have agreed upon through our government. Driving is in no way a privilege.

    Yes, I can't go drive my car like I do the "Barracks OL" in the video game "Grand Theft Auto 3," and expect to be allowed to continue to use the public road system. But at the same time, the state does not have the right to place potentially unconstitutional burdens on my use of the road system which I pay for.

  92. the law decides for you by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

    When I'm driving my car about town, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy that included that my movements are not being tracked, that the passenger compartment is not bugged, and so on.

    I doubt bugging your car would fly, but I could certainly hire a private investigator to follow you without your knowledge. I could put recording devices in public places that you're known to frequent that would pick up your 3am chat. The guy a table over at McDonald's just might be a cop eavesdropping on your conversation (and recording it). Whatever expectation you have about your privacy in these circumstances, the courts will probably tell you that you're wrong and need to rethink your definition of "reasonable" before you go outside again.

  93. It will be automated like the Toronto highway by aoeuid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the future there might not always be those people working in the toll booths, and this sets a bad precedent.

    Take the new 407 Highway in Toronto Ontario. It is completely automated. It uses transponders, and if you don't have a trasponder it snaps pictures of your license plates. There is no stopping anywhere to pay tolls, whether or not you have a transponder.

    So while you may think its an option to just use the pay booths right now, wait a few years down the road until your state goes completely automated like Toronto, and then you won't have a choice at all. Don't let the precedents be set now.

  94. troll transporters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sweet! let's send them all to the moon.

  95. TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have transponder! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have transponder!

    Yup. My brother works on them.

    Your tires have a passive coil with serial number emitter in them!. A particular frequency energizes it enough so that a receiver can read its little ROM. A ROM which in essense is your GUID for your TIRE. Multiple tires do not confuse the readers.

    I am not making this up. boil down a high end Firestone, or Bridgestone tire and go through the bits near the rim and you will locate the transmitter (similar to pet ids and Mobile SpeedPass, but not as high tech as the tollbooth based units)

    It is for QA and to prevent fraud, but the US Customs service uses it in Canada to detect people who swap liscence plates on cars when doing a transport of contraband on a mule vehicle that normally has not logged enough hours across the border. The customns service and FBI do not yet talk about this, and are starting soon.

    You never heard of it either because nobody moderates on slashdot anymore and this is probably +0 still.

    but the fact is... YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A RADIO TRANSPONDER not counting your digital cell phone which is routinely silently pulsed in CA bay area each rush hour morning unless turned off (consult Wired Magazine Expose article). Those data point pulses are used by NSA on occasions.

    Fastpass is being upgraded to scan all car tires in future years upcomming.

    http://www.tadiran-telematics.com/products6.html

    The us FBI/NRO/NSA has requested us gov make this tire scanning information Ssecret as the information regarding all us inkjet printers sold in usa in last 3 years using "yellow" barcode under dark regions to serialize printouts to thwart counterfeiting. Luckily court dockets divulge the existense of the Epson serial numbers on your printouts... but nobody except a handful of people know about this Tire scanning upgrade

    YOU MUST BUY NEUTRALIZED OR FOREIGN TIRES!!!!!

    Alternatively you could illegally build microwave jamming devices at : 13.56MHz, + 1,356 MHz +- many freqs (TI-RFid) and a few others.
    but your brain would possibly cook over time.

    RFIDs have been covertly used and sold by TI for over ten years are in many many products... and now your tires are being read by the us gov as you drive at sppeds of up to 100 Mph on primary US interstate corridors.

    Those same US interstate corridors have radiation detectors too, but a small layer of stacks of interlocked graphite blocks those from detecting stealthy deliveries.

    Learn and read.

  96. TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have transponder! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have transponder!

    Yup. My brother works on them.

    Your tires have a passive coil with serial number emitter in them!. A particular frequency energizes it enough so that a receiver can read its little ROM. A ROM which in essense is your GUID for your TIRE. Multiple tires do not confuse the readers.

    I am not making this up. boil down a high end Firestone, or Bridgestone tire and go through the bits near the rim and you will locate the transmitter (similar to pet ids and Mobile SpeedPass, but not as high tech as the tollbooth based units)

    It is for QA and to prevent fraud, but the US Customs service uses it in Canada to detect people who swap liscence plates on cars when doing a transport of contraband on a mule vehicle that normally has not logged enough hours across the border. The customs service and FBI do not yet talk about this, and are starting using it soon.

    You never heard of it either because nobody moderates on slashdot anymore and this is probably +0 still.

    but the fact is... YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A RADIO TRANSPONDER not counting your digital cell phone which is routinely silently pulsed in CA bay area each rush hour morning unless turned off (consult Wired Magazine Expose article). Those data point pulses are used by NSA on occasions.

    Fastpass is being upgraded to scan all car tires in future years upcomming.

    http://www.tadiran-telematics.com/products6.html

    The us FBI/NRO/NSA has requested us gov make this tire scanning information Ssecret as the information regarding all us inkjet printers sold in usa in last 3 years using "yellow" barcode under dark regions to serialize printouts to thwart counterfeiting. Luckily court dockets divulge the existense of the Epson serial numbers on your printouts... but nobody except a handful of people know about this Tire scanning upgrade

    YOU MUST BUY NEUTRALIZED OR FOREIGN TIRES!!!!!

    It is VERY illegal to buy or disable the "911" GPS emitter in digital cell phone in the US or ship one across state borders, but it is still legal to turn off your cell phone in your car while travelling. As you should. And you should be wary of your tires.

    Alternatively you could illegally build microwave jamming devices at : 13.56MHz, + 1,356 MHz +- many freqs (TI-RFid) and a few others.
    but your brain would possibly cook over time.

    RFIDs have been covertly used and sold by TI for over ten years are in many many products... and now your tires are being read by the us gov as you drive at sppeds of up to 100 Mph on primary US interstate corridors.

    Those same US interstate corridors have radiation detectors too, but a small layer of stacks of interlocked graphite blocks those from detecting stealthy deliveries.

    Learn and read.

  97. TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have transponder! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are still correlated at US borders with license plate vs car tire serial numbers.

    TOP SECRET FACT:Most modern cars have transponder!

    Yup. My brother works on them.

    Your tires have a passive coil with serial number emitter in them!. A particular frequency energizes it enough so that a receiver can read its little ROM. A ROM which in essense is your GUID for your TIRE. Multiple tires do not confuse the readers.

    I am not making this up. boil down a high end Firestone, or Bridgestone tire and go through the bits near the rim and you will locate the transmitter (similar to pet ids and Mobile SpeedPass, but not as high tech as the tollbooth based units)

    It is for QA and to prevent fraud, but the US Customs service uses it in Canada to detect people who swap liscence plates on cars when doing a transport of contraband on a mule vehicle that normally has not logged enough hours across the border. The customs service and FBI do not yet talk about this, and are starting using it soon.

    You never heard of it either because nobody moderates on slashdot anymore and this is probably +0 still.

    but the fact is... YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A RADIO TRANSPONDER not counting your digital cell phone which is routinely silently pulsed in CA bay area each rush hour morning unless turned off (consult Wired Magazine Expose article). Those data point pulses are used by NSA on occasions.

    Fastpass is being upgraded to scan all car tires in future years upcomming.

    http://www.tadiran-telematics.com/products6.html

    The us FBI/NRO/NSA has requested us gov make this tire scanning information Ssecret as the information regarding all us inkjet printers sold in usa in last 3 years using "yellow" barcode under dark regions to serialize printouts to thwart counterfeiting. Luckily court dockets divulge the existense of the Epson serial numbers on your printouts... but nobody except a handful of people know about this Tire scanning upgrade

    YOU MUST BUY NEUTRALIZED OR FOREIGN TIRES!!!!!

    It is VERY illegal to buy or disable the "911" GPS emitter in digital cell phone in the US or ship one across state borders, but it is still legal to turn off your cell phone in your car while travelling. As you should. And you should be wary of your tires.

    Alternatively you could illegally build microwave jamming devices at : 13.56MHz, + 1,356 MHz +- many freqs (TI-RFid) and a few others.
    but your brain would possibly cook over time.

    RFIDs have been covertly used and sold by TI for over ten years are in many many products... and now your tires are being read by the us gov as you drive at sppeds of up to 100 Mph on primary US interstate corridors.

    Those same US interstate corridors have radiation detectors too, but a small layer of stacks of interlocked graphite blocks those from detecting stealthy deliveries.

    Learn and read.

  98. Re:TOP SECRET FACT:Yup. Its true(sokymat LOGI 160) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. Its true (sokymat LOGI 160, and sokymat LOGI 120) are just SOME of the transponders found in modern tires.

    earliest tire radio spy chips had only 64 bit serial numbers but they have rapidly evolved post 911 bombings:
    LOGI 160
    LOGI 120 has 224 bit R/W memory (sokymat.ch) to be marked using external hand help injectors with "salt" info when the fbi tags your parked car.

    Using these chips to track people while they drive is actually the idea of the us gov, and current chips CANNOT BE DISABLED or removed.

    they are hardened against removal or easy eye detection and can be almost ANYWHERE in the new "big brother" tires. In fact in current models they are integrated early and deep into the substrate of the tire as per US FBI request.

    http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:TAQIKjBI01g C: www.sokymat.com/sp/applications/tireid.html

    (slashdot ruins links, so you will have to remove the space it adds usually into the url above to get to the info on the enbedded LOGI 160 chips that the us scans when you cross mexican and canadian borders.)

  99. You can always move... by Polo · · Score: 2

    Luckily, you can always move to Liberty City.

  100. Oh dear... by allism · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just what did you do to have highway patrolmen often tell you otherwise???

  101. Actually, just the opposite by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

    When I was in high school, my Calculus teacher mentioned a similar situation concerning the Mean Value Theorem. The Mean Value Theorem (a generalization of Rolle's Theorem) states, in effect, that if a function is differentiable, then the derivative must, at some point, be equal to the average value; for more information, see this page. A jurisdiction which escapes me instituted a program of placing timestamps on toll tickets, then ticketing persons whose average speeds were in excess of the speed limit. Seems obvious that if your average is in excess of x, then you must, at some point, have been travelling faster than x, but somebody challenged it in court. The jurisdiction (again, I don't recall who it was) brought in a mathematician, who explained Rolle's Theorem and the Mean Value Theorem on the witness stand. The gist of the jurisdiction's argument was that "we may not know where you broke the speed limit, but we can prove that you did." The court upheld the ticket, and the program.

    Anyhow, as far as this thread goes, they can still issue tickets based on time. If people stop using the toll transponder, all they have to do is include times on the toll ticket (assuming they use toll tickets; Oklahoma's toll roads don't--you pay your three bucks at entry, regardless of how far you're going), and they can issue all the tickets they want, regardless of whether the defendant used the transponder or not.

    Side note...I started thinking about Rolle's theorem a few days ago, and for no reason. ESP or something. Kinda scary...Mr. Young, you've polluted my brain...

    --
    Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  102. For that gross an infraction, sure by barzok · · Score: 2

    For people doing 75-80, they won't bother, plus the time sync issues between stations (exits) could introduce enough error to make their measurements suspect at best.

    But at over twice the speed limit you can bet someone's going to notice.

  103. Mod these three posts up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUNNY!!! lol

  104. Not going to stop (smart) speeders by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

    It removes all of the (practical) motivation to speed. You can't remove the other kind of motivation anyway, unless you make speeding commonplace and legal.

    Consider this: the section of the NYS Thruway from Newburgh to Albany is just about 80 miles. At 65, it takes about 1 hour 15 minutes. But I usually stop at the final rest area to take a piss and get more coffee, so we're talking 1 hour 20 minutes total. At 80mph (normal speed on the Thruway), I could take a leisurely 15 minute break, rest, eat, piss, and still make the toll-to-toll time appear as if I was doing the legal 65mph. Doing 80mph makes for less time in the car, a longer break, and saves an additional 5 minutes. That's why we do it... I mean why other do it; of course I obey the speed limit =)

    On a side note, the NY "EZPass" brochure says they won't release the info to the police (or the insurance companies hopefully) without a court order. But it still concerns me that some major company insurance company could buy the EZPass contract, along with all the records, and raise rates according to my toll-to-toll speeds.

    And I usually take the transponder off the winshield when I'm not going through the toll... twice it's shaken loose and dropped square onto my drink holder spilling my coffee. Can't have that happening...

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    1. Re:Not going to stop (smart) speeders by Saeger · · Score: 2
      It's a good thing MetroCards are anonymous, otherwise I'd still be using tokens... or jumping the turnstyles.

      EZPass doesn't NEED to know who I am - an anonymous system like Metrocard could have worked just as well. I'd rather prepay cash than be able to be tracked.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  105. Speeding cops, and other nuisances to society by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, you can do something about cops (and others) who speed. If you have a second person in the car (or know somebody in another nearby car--you just need another witness), you can have a ticket issued to the offender. Note the time and place, then you and your witness go to the police station and report the offense. As you have a second (or more) witness, the offender can be issued a ticket, and it will stick if you have to go to court (assuming your other witness comes to testify). When I'm with another person, I make it a point to watch for police abuses. I feel that if they're going to be in charge of enforcing the law, they had damned sure better be following it themselves. You'd be surprised how easy it is to file the complaint when you have an additional witness.

    --
    Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
  106. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling by smiff · · Score: 2
    The case involved someone growing pot in their attic, or whatnot, and the law enforcement authorities used some long wavelength IR gear to try to see what was going on...

    The Supreme Court ruled on the Kyllo case last year and threw out the search warrant. The court defined a new "bright line" rule for using technology. The bright line rule says basically that the police can not monitor you with tools that are "not in general public use."

    Incidently, where I live, the police were given a couple thermal imagers by the federal government a few months after that ruling.

  107. I can't believe no one mentioned this by smiff · · Score: 3, Interesting
    John Gilmore is suing for the right to fly anonymously. Many of the questions brought up in his FAQ have a direct parallel to this issue.

    Q. Why is anonymity so important to the right to travel?

    Most travel is for meeting other people. I fly to see my family, you fly on business, she flies to meet her best friend, he flies for a romantic vacation with his sweetheart, she flies to a conference, they fly to a political event. Meeting with people is part of "free association", which just means being free to associate with whoever you want to.

    Undemocratic governments traditionally try to prevent people from associating anonymously, because most credible challenges to government policies occur from groups of people who meet and agree to work together. Racist Southern states passed laws 50 years ago to require the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to give its membership list to the state -- so that the members could be harassed or killed by Ku Klux Klan members who were often local racist politicians and law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court struck down those laws. The NAACP was able to gather broad support for changing our racial policies, and we had a relatively peaceful transition to a much less racist society. These racist governments wanted to scare people away from joining the reform movements, either by harassing existing members, or by making people afraid to join. If they had gotten their way, we would still have terrible racial policies, or the people most affected by those policies would have had to resort to violence to get the policies changed. If the government had a database tracking the movements of NAACP leaders and those who attended its rallies and events, then the government could harass the organization without ever getting the membership list.

    In addition, the First Amendment gives us the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. We can petition anonymously, and sometimes we must, when seeking to change draconian laws that the government would like to apply to us. A small number of the people who protested the WTO in Seattle were violent, but that is no excuse for seeking to identify WTO protesters in general, or to prevent them from traveling to the next anti-WTO protest. If the government could track everyone who flew to Seattle that week, and mark them as suspected terrorists, then their freedom to anonymously petition would be violated.

    As Americans, we are pretty smug about our freedom; we don't even think about how we would take it back if suddenly a planned demonstration or political meeting was "canceled" because 90% of the attendees had been mysteriously stopped from flying or driving or taking the train or bus to attend. But the "transportation security" system and the profiling and databases behind it are all poised and ready to do exactly that. All it will take is a bureaucrat or politician who says "Do it", because all the mechanisms will already be built. It was only 60 years ago that hundreds of thousands of Americans were imprisoned solely for their Japanese cultural heritage. Only 40 years ago that anti-war and civil rights protesters were bugged, followed, smeared, arrested, impersonated, and disrupted by the supposedly lawful government. Only 30 years ago that a Republican President was bugging the Democratic National Committee. Only ten years ago that our prison population was half what it is today, with the increase coming from imprisoning black and Latino innocents over victimless crimes like drug use. Only two years ago that a Presidential election was stolen. I'm not talking about a banana republic somewhere else; I'm talking about our own country. Abuse of government surveillance, and suppresison of unpopular minorities, are documented facts right here in the US, not unrealistic or remote fears.

    1. Re:I can't believe no one mentioned this by Ironica · · Score: 1

      "If the government could track everyone who flew to Seattle that week, and mark them as suspected terrorists, then their freedom to anonymously petition would be violated."

      No... because at least 95% of them would have nothing to do with the demonstration, and they know that. Seattle is something of a hub, and has a lot of business travel as well as tourism. Also, demonstrations tend to draw a lot of "home grown" support; probably a surprising proportion of those folks drove, and are untrackable.

      "...if suddenly a planned demonstration or political meeting was "canceled" because 90% of the attendees had been mysteriously stopped from flying or driving or taking the train or bus to attend. But the "transportation security" system and the profiling and databases behind it are all poised and ready to do exactly that."

      No, they're not. Because the thing they still *can't* do, as you pointed out earlier in your post, is track organizational membership. If I'm a member of Atheists United, and I make a plane reservation to go to Washington DC for the "Godless Americans March on Washington," in order to stop me they'd first have to know that I was a known atheist, and then that I was flying to go to that demonstration. They can't do that without breaking their own laws and throwing even (especially?) the right-wingers into a tizzy.

      There is a difference between knowing who is on the plane and knowing why. You still have the right to free association because you do not need a *reason* to get on the plane. You just need a photo ID. If they start asking "And what is the goal of your trip?" when I make a reservation, I may worry, but until then the air travel industry is too high-volume for them to use that information against people. Not to mention, airlines make a nice chunk of change off of conventions and the like; they don't want to lose business, and would be reluctant to cooperate, which would make it all that much harder.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    2. Re:I can't believe no one mentioned this by smiff · · Score: 2
      No, they're not. Because the thing they still *can't* do, as you pointed out earlier in your post, is track organizational membership.

      If they keep a record of every place you travel, and you just happen to be in the vicinity of most Athiests United gatherings, they can conclude with a fairly large degree of certainty, that your planned trip to Washington DC is to attend the planned Athiests United protest. They could block you and most other Athiests United members while blocking only a few people who are not associated with Athiests United.

      They can't do that without breaking their own laws and throwing even (especially?) the right-wingers into a tizzy.

      The last paragraph was to illustrate that our government has no qualms about breaking its own laws. As another example, suppose you're a government agency, and a gourt issues an order which you disagree with. Normally, you would file an appeal. In an unprecedented move earlier this week, the Bush administration simply refused to comply with a court order. I don't see any right-wingers going into a 'tizzy' over it.

    3. Re:I can't believe no one mentioned this by neocon · · Score: 1
      Funny how the WP article neglects to mention that the order in question had been suspended by the higher court which is hearing the appeal of the decision in question.

      But I'm sure that was just an accidental oversight...

  108. How do you know you're not doing anything "wrong"? by /dev/zero · · Score: 1

    Do you know every single law, statute, ordinance, regulation, and edict? It is no longer possible to. Add to that the fact that there are no longer effective limits on the power of government to make or change laws at whim.

    Still sure you're not doing anything "wrong"?

    Want to bet your life, liberty, and property on it?

    Gordon.

    --

    He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
    -- J.R.R. Tolkien
  109. EM gun by minh7749 · · Score: 1

    I wanna get an electo-magnetic gun and drive through those toll roads. Goodbye cameras, goodbye transponder reciever. Heheheh.

  110. on and off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would a simple on and off switch on the transponder solve the issue?

    1. Re:on and off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope.

      The transponders in tires SOKYMAT chips in high end firestone and other usa tires are intert SpeedPass designs.

      There is no battery, the capacitor is internal. the poser comes from hifrequency external energy directed at you.

      you cannot stop californa from scanning the serial numbers in your tires, or other passive transponders you own.

      check out the post i made a few posts ago on this.

  111. RADIO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey dumbass, they are radio frequency, putting them in the glovebox alone will not help!
    You must wrap them in aluminum foil, much like your pretty little hat is made out of. Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick!

  112. But, they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are, in fact, being used it issue tickets already.

    In some places there are electronic toll only exits, so the idea people can stop using them doesn't hold either.

    What kills me about all this digital fun stuff is the vast majority of it doesn't need to be personal. Send 'em $100 and they send you a transponder, no name, address, or license data needed. Wanna know how much is left on the account? Type the transponder code into a web site.

    So, since the stated goals of the toll tracking systems are all so doable WITHOUT the personal ID aspect, why where the systems designed to depend on personal ID data? Odds on there's an agenda in there somewhere.

  113. Why should you care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simple... because *you* wouldn't go down the street telling everyone you meet (whether you know them or not) that you generally leave for work about 7:30am, and don't come back home until about 5:30pm would you?

    The problem is that the data *might* be used for one purpose, that of measuring traffic, but is then at some future point repurposed for something else. Perhaps a criminal has a friend who works in the DMV? They get the data, correlate it with some census demographics and target houses in a nice area to visit when the people aren't home.

    Maybe a lawyer uses the information to 'prove' that you were the little green car that cut someone else off in traffic (hey, you were just avoiding an accident yourself!) and caused a 15-car pile up... They prove it because you're the ONLY little green car that goes on that stretch of highway for the past 3 months at about 8:10am, and you happened to be one of two little green cars on the highway, and the other one was just getting on...

    People use the data that you purchased LOTR to say that you're into 'satanic', 'ritualistic' or other 'fantasy' movies, and that you're a suspect in a crime that involved someone leaving behind a fantasy sword used to kill a family of 4... Interestingly enough, this family of 4 frequented the same Burger King that you go to every morning and evening for breakfast and dinner, and got the last Whopper which caused you to be extremely pissed off after nearly getting into the accident on the tollway earlier in the day (you remember, the one that caused the pileup?)...

    If the data isn't capture in the first place, then it CAN'T ever be used against you. If it's there, it will definately be used against you any chance that someone gets to do so... Protect yourself, and just don't share it in the first place.

  114. Income tax too was temporary by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
    I was taught in school that that Robert Peel (of the Bobbie fame) brought income tax at a rate of 2.5% to finance the Napoleonic Wars. It was a temporary manner that has lasted almost a couple of hundres years. I learned that temporary revenue generators are only reluctantly (if ever) abandoned by governments.

    More on topic is that automatic speed traps are used in several smaller towns and villages in Europe as a tax on uutsiders. They never move, so they never catch locals. The out of towners who get picked up help subside the town council.

  115. I'm gonna pop. by twitter · · Score: 2

    It may be legal to track my car, but it's not moral. The devices were distributed under false pretenses and the real use is reprehensible. Where I go is my business, not yours and not the police's. People who carry such devices are slaves. Those who advocate their involuntary use by others are worse. They should work on either limiting the tags to their proper uses or disabling them. This is not the kind of convienence that I pay taxes for. What do you expect your government to do for you today?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  116. Re:This always bothered me - they can't ticket you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way they can write you a ticket based on the toll time for a simple reason: You ticket DRIVERS, not CARS.
    They have to prove that one person was driving the entire time in order to ticket him/her. Let's say there are two people in the car. One drives halfway at 95 MPH. He pulls over, and the other driver then drives the rest of the way at 55 MPH. The average speed is 75 MPH, but which one broke the law? No evidence.