Big Brother Will Be Watching You In Florida

An anonymous reader submits "The Florida Times Union is running a story about the city of Manalapan putting up cameras and an automatic optical recognition system to check the license plates of every car to drive through town. As usual the article spins the system as something positive to battle crime. Just one step close to Eric Arthur Blair's vision of 1984."

Comments

ONE good thing

[PornMaster]

They say they'll destroy the data after 3 months. While this whole thing reeks evil to me, at least [they say] they're not going to be storing all this info in perpetuity.

-PM

Re:ONE good thing

[splatonline]

Surely you don't believe a '3 month' promise on this particular issue counts for much.

There is no problem with the act of people's number plates being scanned in Florida (its not even a place I am going to visit in the next few years.)
The only problem here is the fact that as technology lets people do this, it will happen more and more. The 3 month rule could change next week.

Re:ONE good thing

[Dutchmaan]

They say they'll destroy the data after 3 months. While this whole thing reeks evil to me, at least [they say] they're not going to be storing all this info in perpetuity.

Check back when they have the efficient means to do that...

If something can be done easily for the sake of security but is against privacy or ethics, it's only a matter of time before implementation.

Re:ONE good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they bring in a series of Sonny Bono 'license plate extension acts', which will store data for a 'limited time'.

Re:ONE good thing

[eclectro]

They say they'll destroy the data after 3 months.

Saying and doing are two different things entirely.

If you have ever been to college and taken a psychology class, you may be aware of psychology experiments that you can participate in (usually for a small bribe or extra credit).

I had a psychology professor talk about privacy, and she mentioned that she (and others) never got around to destroying data from old psych experiments (contrary to what they said when you signed up to do the experiment). Including personally identifying information.

I mention this as an example of several problems. First, as well meaning as this seams to be, the fact is once your name makes it into a computer somewhere, chances are excellent that it will stay there. If not there, then on some backup tapes somewhere. Or on the hardrive when they send the old computer to the thrift store. Or when they swap out the old hard drive and sell it on ebay.

I have old hard drives lying around that I got at the thrift in the eighties. I wonder what is on them? I bet I could give some people heart attacks.

I think more people are becoming aware of this, but probably not enough.

What is also troublesome is the connection of our names and the social security number in databases. They may use that here as many driver license divisions require one to drive.

Then, what database cross pollination occurs?

Normally, this might be seen as a smart idea. But I question its worth versus real cost.

Re:ONE good thing

[packeteer]

As soon as it is discovered that someone who was wanted for murder and was previously scanned (but the records were destroyed) drives through town and kills someone everyone will freak and say that if they extend it to a year it could have saved a life. Nobody will complain when the time limit is extended bit by bit untill the records are permanent.

Re:ONE good thing

[DoraLives]

I write software that does similar things to this

Of course you do.

The problems with this sort of thing are uncannily similar to the problems with things like ... oh say ... nuclear energy. Though it may indeed be capable of serving its masters for the benefit of all, it also has an aspect that will allow it to serve other masters, not all of whom have the best interestes of you and me in mind. History tells us that we can count upon individuals and instrumentalities to use this kind of thing for the very worst of reasons.

Sleep well tonight, for you are being watched over my friend.

Re:ONE good thing

[Radical Rad]

at least [they say] they're not going to be storing all this info in perpetuity.

Of course not. Why should they do that when the Office of Fatherland Security can store it for them much more efficiently including redundant backups?

Seriously though, one of the ways that the fourth amendment is being attacked is by convincing the public that the word "reasonable" means something to the effect of "not objectionable to most people" (as in 'Come on into Crazy Eddies, I've got the most reasonable prices around!') Then telling the public we have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and continually reducing that expectation bit by bit over the years.

But the Founders wrote the Constitution using legal definitions not colloquialisms. A reading of the amendment specifically mentions oaths, affirmation, and specificity of any search to be performed. The concept of reasonableness as it is used in the Constitution is more along the lines of "able to be reasoned (deduced) from actual evidence or charges made by accountable persons". If we don't object to this hijacking of the original intent of the document then we are surrendering our freedom without a fight. Stand up and be counted. Study the 4th amendment then write your congressman and let him know that you understand what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it and you want him to uphold our highest law as it was written.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

These words are simple to understand. They were written by eloquent men, who didn't have cell phones, instant messaging, or voicemail. They wrote letters to communicate. They were good at writing what they meant. We shouldn't let ourselves be confused by replacing exacting legal definitions with informal, modern usages.

Re:ONE good thing

[sfe_software]

The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.

And that's where it starts. The thing is, we have (at the moment) a right to privacy. While this particular story isn't all that big a deal, we continually accept more and more invasions on privacy.

Life inherently contains risk. You can't protect everyone all of the time, without making life completely miserable. So while a particular technology may have some benefits, it also may destroy any enjoyment of life.

Think about health nuts (vegans, etc). They refuse to eat meats, etc, or perhaps they work out 4 hours a day. Whatever it is, they may prolong their life by some amount (a few years perhaps) but when your whole life revolves around extending it, what good is it?

I'm willing to take a risk that someone might get away with a crime here and there, in exchange for not having my every move monitored by camera, GPS, credit cards, or whatever. And if I get killed as a result -- then I guess my number came up. At least I had fun while I could.

Just my two cents.

Re:ONE good thing

[bgeer]

Yeah right. Just like the ATF isn't allowed to maintain instant background check data right? Or how DOD closed down Total Information Awareness, right?

When systems like this are intentionally exposed to public scrutiny, there will always be a mollifying language included in it. Their goal is to make the average person feel not certain enough that they're threatened to get off their couch and take action.

Once the spooks have gotten the consent they need from politicians, the political reality is that they can throw out the promises they made and they can even stretch their goals beyond considerably beyond what was agreed to.

The current fight over surveillance in public areas is huge. It is at least as big as DRM. They will retain the data forever. The first few times these systems are used, it will be to convict a dangerous criminal--maybe they'll mine the data to disprove a serial killer's alibi.

A few years later, they'll have real-time tracking of every car. This will be used to find unusual patterns such as the vehicles of multiple "persons of interest" (muslims, anti-globalization activists, etc), heading toward a particular site for a meeting. Then others who went to the same area will be flagged too. Pretty soon we may as well be living in North Korea.

Re:ONE good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been involved in the design and creation of a police data terminal. One of the major requirements on it is that records of who has accessed what, from where, be stored for a significant period of time. This period of time is generally around two years.

The reason is just as you noted, so an officer who abuses the system to track down an ex-girlfriend, celebrity or undercover agent can be punished for his crime.

These abuses do occur, but they're easily traced, and punished severely.

Re:ONE good thing

[ari_j]

The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.

This is a very dangerous attitude to have. It's this kind of thinking by the masses that can allow growth and exploitation of governmental powers.

It's also flat-out wrong, in the same way that it'd be wrong to say "any innocent person will be acquitted in court, so the only people who have anything to fear from a guilty-until-proven-innocent legal system are those who are guilty".

Moreover, it's only one more step to add long-term archival and tracking to this kind of system. You may retort, "But why would they do that? They just ignore you if you're not on a watch list." To answer that question preemptively, they would do that so that, should you later be added to a watch list, they can also pull up records of where you've been and when you were there.

Don't think that, just because it's not being exploited now, it never will be. A similar thing happened in the early 1930's, when a court decided that short-barreled guns were an exception to the second amendment. Politicians were quick to pass the Gun Control Act in 1934, which severely restricts the sale and ownership of short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns and certain other weapons. Now, they keep a list (at the Federal level) of everyone who owns any of these things.

To answer to questions a lot of people are sure to ask:
1. Yes, short-barreled shotguns, of the 'trench gun' variety, were the first banned weapons; not machine guns.
2. The second amendment exists to ensure that the government fears the people ('fear' in the same sense as I am a God-fearing Christian - I respect his wishes), and therefore, machine guns are among the guns that it was intended to protect my ownership of, because a government with machine guns versus a citizen without will not be fearful of that citizen.
3. What I've just said in no way means that we should be able to own nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction - they are useless in fighting tyranny (they can only be used indiscriminately against an area target, which isn't helpful in a rebellion).

Re:ONE good thing

[general_re]

Sure, give me the right away and I'll have no problem building an additional set of private roads.

"Give"? If it's that important to you, surely you're prepared to pay for it ;)

Do you really think freedom of travel doesn't exist because the roads are public?

"Freedom to travel" is not the same as "right to privacy" - not even close. Just because you're not anonymous on the public roads, that doesn't mean you're not free to travel them.

Re:ONE good thing

[freejung]

Not on a public street, you don't.

Good point. For instance, I can take a picture of you on a public street and keep it as long as I want.

But it's a little different when the government is doing it. Sure, this kind of surveillance is legal. But should it be? That is the question, and it is a good question. I for one am against it, but I also see it as inevitable. "The only privacy you have anymore is the inside of your own head, and maybe that's enough." -- "Enemy of the State".

You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary. This is the principle of checks and balances.

The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.

Re:ONE good thing

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Brady Law requires that background checks be performed by the Feds within three business days (if possible - it is not an automagic downcheck on the sale if the background check is not completed in a timely manner). Records related to the sale (except the paperwork the dealer is required to maintain under older firearms regulations) are requierd to be destroyed after the check is complete.

And yet, the Feds have been maintaining this information (unlawfully) for extended periods, ostensibly for statistical analysis.

So don't be too sure that any of those records in Florida will ever disappear.

and this for?

[tsunamifirestorm]

if they want to catch people running red lights they could just do photos at intersections. this would not be helpful for tracking people, because cars don't neccessarily mean that the owner is in it.

Well...

[LordK3nn3th]

Normally, I would be against "big brother", but in this case aren't cameras basically able to see only what the general public would be able to see anyway?

Computers obviously are less discriminatory and hopefully more reliable than a human, if the software is done right. However, the issue is privacy, so I digress. But, computer vs. policeman aside, what difference does it make if a police officer was stationed looking for people?

If a camera was focused on private property (like on a house), then that would certainly be an invasion of privacy (that kind of survellience is hopefully illegal), or the government had "special" means that cannot be easily monitored such as those security blimps then I would agree it's a loss of privacy.

I'm certainly for as little government as possible. But in this case is privacy really being lost? The same thing can be done with humans, afterall, and no one complains about loss of privacy by seeing a police officer legally on public land looking for criminals.

Re:Well...

[SquadBoy]

Becuase a cop looking for people does not leave a permanent record of it. So yes by installing a unblinking eye that creates a permanent record of who drove by it is a very large loss pr privacy.

Another way of explaining it is you go from a person who has limited ability to observe things and so in practice has to have some reason other than the fact that you drove by to look up your license plate number and compare it to things to a device that will look up every single license plate that drives by. This is a bad thing.

Re:Well...

[buss_error]

The problem here is that evidence once collected has a way of sticking around.

I once had my door kicked in and a dozen or so police point their guns at me. Why? Because a drug dealer lived in my apartment six months before I moved in.

A murder is commited and one of these cameras record the license plate.
So, let's say you buy a used car. A couple of months go by, and now the police come in to arrest you for murder. When they break in your door, they don't like the way you didn't fall flat on your face fast enough and blow holes in you. The fact that you had nothing to do with the murder doesn't help you, you are already dead.

Strangely enough, police make this kind of error all the time. I got pulled over in MA 7 times because my car had Texas plates, and "every one knows" that every Texan carries guns in his car! (Actual quote from a cop.)

I think the police do a very hard job, but when your job is to deal with the scum of the earth, you might forget that not everyone in uniform is scum.

Re:Well...

[rblum]

The problem is not the act of watching. The problem is the fact that a computerized system is able to record *everything*, and people are able to search through that data long after.

What this effectively means is that I either give up privacy, or the right to travel freely. Before, with the human watching things, I could always choose to drive at nighttime, or in a convoy, and assume that he'd quickly forget I was there.

The problem with data collection is that computer memory never forgets, and it is frighteningly easy to cross-reference with other data. *That* is the real problem. If it would only compare the license plate to a list of stolen cars, and then discard the data, no problem.

But keeping data around allows people to get insights into private lifes that you don't want to share.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is one of cost. Automation makes things cheap to do. Maintaining a police watch on a suspect is fairly expensive - enough so that you can't afford to watch everyone that way.

When you automate it, it gets cheap enough that you can afford to have the equivalent of a cop following you all the time and watching everything you do. When the cops do that it's usually
called harassment, even when it's only done in public.

It's similar to the provacy implications of data-mining. When you had to go to the local courthouse to read records it was too expensive to do en-masse. Now they're online and it's cheap to do massive trawls for data.

Re:Well...

[LordK3nn3th]

No, at least not as far as privacy is concerned.

Re:Well...

[dfghjk]

Requiring a person protects against a whole class of corruption. Theoretically, a police officer is particularly "ethical" whereas the operators of automated equipment are not.

It's well known that automated traffic enforcement systems operated by contractors incented by the rate at which they produce tickets encourage "creative" traffic light timing, for example. It's quite difficult to prove that you were victimized by an inadequate yellow cycle even though that's exactly what happens.

It's typical across the country that a new technology be established in court as being reliable for use as evidence. The way this is done is by choosing a defendent unlikely to be able to defend himself adequately and force a trial in hopes that the technology will not be challenged. Once established, precedence prevents future defendents from challenging the legitimacy of the technology. Questionable police radars are frequently slid through this way.

In Texas you are entitled to face your accuser and the accuser must be a human, never a machine. Photoradar is thankfully llegal there. If you are to be accused of a crime (no matter how small) you should expect a person to be witness to it rather than machines that are operated by corporations whose incentives you stand no chance of discovering.

Implementing a system like the one described is never done for no particular reason. You can bet that the purpose is to generate traffic fine revenue and that the techniques will be even more hypocritical and unscrupulous than traffic cops are.

please adjust your tin-foil beanie

[l0ungeb0y]

From the submitter:
"Just one step close to Eric Arthur Blair's vision of 1984"

Sir, CCTV being used to monitor traffic is nothing new and being a slashdot reader muchless, lucky article submitter, I'd advise you to check the fastenings of your cranial mindwave protection device.

All who got the memo know quite well that 1984 conditions will have arrived in full when the TiVo records you.

Good day.

Uhm...

[delus10n0]

How is this NOT something helpful in the fight against crime? How is this an invasion of privacy?

ie, "Courts have ruled that in a public area, you have no expectation of privacy,"

System scans license plate --> finds license plate is for a stolen car --> police notified of location in real time.

How is that a bad thing, again?

Re:Calm down...

[AstrumPreliator]

So now that they have these cameras set up to "protect our rights", who is going to stop them from pointing them into your homes? Are you going to? I doubt it, they'll put a guise over it and say there have been cat burglers or something and they are trying to catch them. Pretty soon you will be under surveillance in your own home.

It's not what they're doing right now, but what they CAN do. This is just one step towards that direction.

Re:Eric Arthur who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the submitter is in fact just a pathetic twat who thinks that knowing that Orwell is a pen name somehow makes him smart.

I don't know the submitter, but I imagine him to be fat, bald, pedantic, and egotistical. Basically, Comic Book Guy.

Let them live the way they want to live

[mc6809e]

Really, why must there be a single standard for everyone?

Let them be.

Re:Calm down...

[gravyfaucet]

You seem to forget that America is home to many people of a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities, but all of our slopes are decidedly slippery. Just ask these guys , for one.

Systematic *recording* of data...

[Goonie]

There's a big difference between being in public and having everything you do systematically logged by the government. The potential for abuse of such a system is very high. To consider one scenario, say your spouse hires a sleazy private detective to check up on you, who has a contact in the Ministry of Privacy (obOrwell), who finds out that you drove your car to Ogdenville about six months ago while you were supposed to be at a conference in Capital City.

Re:Calm down...

[MichiganDan]

There are two problems with this, and they are both problems that require looking backwards and forwards simultaneously, something that is extremely difficult.

Problem 1: ABUSE. Every example wherein more power has been given to the "authorities" has led to abuse, either personal (as in Bill Clinton's use of FBI files) or institutional (the FBI keeping many of those files to begin with). Certainly, giving up some power is necessary and good; this is the basis of democratic theory for everone from Locke to Mill. But every new power taken by the authorities must be met with a benefit-cost analysis of the risks involved versus the potential rewards. I think we will mostly agree that letting the state enforce rules about who may drive is generally a good thing; it means that you have to show competence in driving before being set loose to potentially hurt innocent people. I believe (tho' many /.ers will disagree) that mandatory instruction on gun safety should be a prerequisite to purchase a firearm or a hunting license. But this is a subject that reasonable people can disagree on; those against argue that it will lead to an abuse of power in the form of the government collecting our guns.

Problem 2: SLIPPERY SLOPE. This is somewhat overused as a cliche, but it's a valid point. Once we are desensitized to one thing, it becomes that much easier for the next thing to happen. The Third Reich (Godwin's law does not apply; I am not comparing any /.er to a Nazi!) did not go from election to Final Solution overnight; it took a gradual dehumanization of the Jews to get there. But if it's cameras checking our cars today, will we have to have RFID chips in our drivers licenses tomorrow to monitor our movements? Those could help catch speeders -- but at what cost?

The adage that "if you're not doing bad, you have nothing to fear" only works if 1) there is never any abuse of police power, and 2) the criminals all obey the rules.

Unfortunately, these two conditions are never possible.

Re:Eric Arthur who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing something is one thing. Being an absolute asshole about it -- trying to confuse people to look smart -- is something else. I know German. I don't post in it.

Did saying "Eric Blair's 1984" have ONE IOTA of PURPOSE that made it perferable to "George Orwell's 1984?" No. Because the submitter is a twat.

If I wrote this post in German, would that make for a clearer discussion, or would it make me look like a pedantic jerk? The latter. Like the poster.

PS - The same goes for people who quote Cicero in Latin in their sigs.

Re:Eric Arthur who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Du bist ein wienerschnitzel.

Re:beat the system

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, that stuff is total crap. It doesn't work, the police has image processing software that will make your license plate visible. If you get caught (on photo) with that stuff on in Germany, you're in a world of shit.

Re:beat the system

[c0dedude]

I've said it before and I'll repost it again:
If anyone on this thread had half a clue, they'd realize that those things, except the optical one, block by using the FLASH by reflection of light. Clearly, every car can't be recongnized by flash photography, image processing and character recognition is a much more logical choice for this. The spray will not work and I'm sure the lens is blatantly illegal.

And here's an experiment you can do at home!

How the spray works:

Go to a mirror with a digital camera in a dark room. Be sure the flash is on. Stand way too close to the mirror. Take a picture. Came out really bright and crappy, didn't it? Thats exactly what happens with the license plates. They reflect the light if a certain amount of it is transmitted and hits the plate covered with the spray. One of them uses refractive optics to blur the image, but it doesn't work the same way as the spray. To demonstrate how it works, bend the mirror *Warning: do not try this with the average mirror*. Can't see yourself in the picture at all now, eh?

Re:beat the system

[deanj]

Of course it does. It's a big problem down here.

You know, I can understand why people want those things on their cars, but it's gonna be pretty sad when some kid gets abducted, and the police will have to tell the parents they couldn't get the license number because the perv you kidnapped their kid had one of those things on his car.

Re:Eric Arthur who?

[Deraj DeZine]

Or the poster could just save almost everyone the need to Google and just state the guy's commonly-known pen name.

This is basically the same as people complaining about acronyms/project names never being explained in summaries. Given that such summaries are written for the general Slashdot reader who may not care about mlDonkey or Sancho, I think the people writing summaries such as this one are making a mistake.

Re:beat the system

[gl4ss]

and I can sell you an ultra cheap radar detector as well if you fall into that.

you think they'd need flash even, or that flash would be practical for a bigbrother type of a continuous system? and you do realise that the whole point of the register plate is to IDENTIFY YOUR CAR and this thing says it messes with that functionality(and doesn't really take any responsibility on wether your car is road legal with plates with this shit on them).

though, as a snakeoil/useless product it's pretty well designed: some people feel like they have a need for it, those same people are dishonest so dishonest idiots is their target group. it's good because they're idiots(buy any flashy shit they might think they need and more importantly don't even refund if it doesn't even work at all.). so they target dishonest idiots, I wonder if they also sell by spam and do some 419 scams as sidelining?

can you think of any good reason why these should be legal to use? you know it isn't a register plate anymore once you mess with it.

Re:beat the system

[SteakandcheeseUm]

..or when some idiot runs a red light and kills a kid. Who is to blame?

It's not about the individual here

[Xhad]

As has been stated in posts on similar subjects, the problem is not the acquisition of new data (almost none of it is new), but the unprecedented ability to sort and process it.

Government agents could theoretically follow me around everywhere I go without breaking any rules; however, I have not given them a reason to do so, and they can't follow everyone around without spending so much money they'd break the entire economy. The reason why things like this scare people is because it implies that eventually it will be technologically feasible to collect large amounts of data about large amounts of people with little to no manpower. This results in a net decrease in privacy for everyone because things that used to be private only by difficulty lost their only protection.

Seriously...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

How is this different from a cop with a laptop sitting at the gates?

We've come to falsely expect privacy because our world has grown so large. In older days, you would be recognized if you walked into town - without any biometric ID or other technology but common knowledge.

Re:Calm down...

[MourningBlade]

Interesting that you mention dehumanization. One of the things to remember is that today we live in far larger cities than the Germans of then did, and we know fewer of the people we interact with. People around us are perceived as anonymous actors.

The other thing to remember is that people dislike one class of person "getting away with" something they can't, or just breaking the law in general.

As you said, it's easier to pass laws and violate the rights of people you've dehumanized, so consider: whom are we told to dislike as lawbreakers?

Quick list off the top of my head:

• Speeders
• Drunk drivers
• Child-support delinquents
• Drug users
• Drug dealers
• Child abusers

Consider all the laws that have been passed against this anonymous group of people. Now consider what protests regarding the violation of their civil rights are usually met with: "they're guilty. They can't avoid that."

Being able to automatically catch more bad guys will probably lead to more "bad guy" crimes. More people dehumanized, and "unpersoned."

So, ask yourself: if you got 20 people in a room and took one of the above criminals and said their rights were being violated, how many of them do you think you could get to protest? Yes, some categories are easier than others.

But several of these categories of people could arguably be doing nothing "wrong." Speeding isn't dangerous, deviating more than 5 MPH from the average speed of traffic is. Ask an actuary. Drug dealers aren't killing people, it's the turf wars and the surrounding problems. Quite a few high school dealers are pretty innocuous. Child-support delinquency isn't cut-and-dry, it's case-by-case. Drug users aren't hurting anyone but themselves.

But it's far easier to dehumanize an entire class of people.

Just something to think about.

Seems a violation

[linuxtelephony]

Seems like this takes the approach that everyone is guilty until they are proved, by a police scan of the license plates, to be innocent.

When they started doing random seatbelt and sobriety tests, they skirted the issue by making it "random", i.e. every 10th car or something, instead of based on "perception" by the officers. Since they were not checking everyone, it wasn't guilt until proven innocent, and since it was random, it wasn't targetting any specific group based on outside appearances.

Of course, in our post-9-11 loss of sensibility, I doubt anyone will seriously challenge this.

Benjamin Franklin has a couple of appropriate quotes:

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

And most appropriate of all:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Re:Seems a violation

[thomasdelbert]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Sometimes, the security you get gives you liberty. The best comparison to Manalapan is a little country in Europe called Monaco. Like, Manalapan, Monaco is mostly populated by those of exceptional wealth. Those that live there, generally describe it as a police state, and that's why they live there.

My grandmother had her farm house broken into a few years back. They robbed her of just about everything valueale - TV, stereo, microwave, and so on. She had to wait some time before replacing those items, not because she couldn't afford to replace them, but because burglars like to hit houses twice, a few months apart because the second time they rob it, it will have new stuff. She lost a little piece to freedom because of a lack of security.

Now consider that you are super rich. You can afford a Ferarri, you want a Ferarri, but unless you can be sure you won't get car-jacked, you can't have a Ferarri. You can afford a big house, you want a big house but unless you need a certain amount of security if you want to show wealth without haveing it taken from you.
Many apartment buildings and condos have cameras at the door. They exist to serve the residents. Those cameras in Manalapan are no different - they are there to serve the residents. What may be viewed as encroachment in one neighbourhood, is actually liberating in another.

Just my $0,02

- Thomas;

my rights.. don't mean squat to the govt

[panic911]

Next phaze.. Barcode tattoos for all..

Ok.. Barcode tattoos for some.. Miniture american flags for the rest!

Re:beat the system

[Anonymous Coward]

So must we really rack our brains and think of everything that is "bad" that /could/ happen to "anyone" and legislate against it?

Re:beat the system

[Moofie]

You can always come up with a way that infringing on my liberties will Save the Children.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

Re:Eric Arthur who?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Orwell used a pen-name was actually the most interesting part of TFA. Cameras like that are increasingly common, inevitible, and hardly news anymore.

Re:beat the system

[B747SP]

the police will have to tell the parents they couldn't get the license number because the perv you kidnapped their kid had one of those things on his car.

Yeah, and lemme guess, the only people who have anything to worry about are those who have something to hide, right?

Re:beat the system

[Moofie]

No, but any time you are a government and you track everybody's movements by the aggregation of license plate image data, you are infringing on my liberties.

Specifically, the presumption of innocence and the freedom from unwarranted search.

It is merely a small step among many

[praedor]

Leading to a police state in what used to be the USA. The "Patriot" Act and similar nonsense merely nibbles away at a few rights. Just a minor annoyance or inconvenience, right? Then there are "minor" annoyances like the Prez being able to willy-nilly label someone an "enemy combatant" whether you were actually picked up on some field of battle somewhere and tossed in a cell indefinitely with no recourse. No contact with family, lawyers, judges, newspapers, nothing. Oh yeah, and it is only during "wartime". A "war" defined such that it NEVER ends (the "War on Terror"). Then there are minor plantings of surveillance cameras here and there as in the story. Nothing big. Just watching for "evil doers" with warrants out on them...then it is for minor traffic/parking infractions...then it is for odd or "suspicious" behavior. In any case, just a minor adjustment in each case. Just baby steps. Problem is, eventually we get backed into a deep, deep hole and think, "How the HELL did we get here?"

In psychology, it is termed "successive approximation". You can't get someone to outright do some thing or agree to something so you merely walk them towards the desired end by having them take innocuous, minor "baby steps" toward the desired goal. The person has no real problem taking these "minor" steps. On their own they are nothing. In the end, you have them doing something or going along with something that they NEVER would have agreed to if you'd put it to them outright.

Baby steps. Thousands of baby steps can carry us a long distance in a direction we do NOT want to go.

Re:Eric Arthur who?

[jfengel]

And he should go back and reread the book, too. 1984 is about propaganda and thought-control, not privacy per se. The government in 1984 didn't just invade your privacy; it made you like it through manipulation of the language. It changed history, made you believe that less is more and black is white, and ultimately made itself the sole purveyor of truth. The invasion of privacy is a small matter after that.

Re:In the case of an automated system

[maxpublic]

A right to privacy isn't a right to ba anonymous.

According to the Supreme Court, there can be no such thing as truly free speech without the ability to be anonymous. But I suppose you know better than they do, being the morally superior sort that you are.

That is what the right to privacy entails, that you can't be monitored in your home.

Nor can you be monitored in public without sufficient cause or immediate, reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing. Because of that free speech thingie and the need for anonymity, wouldn't you know.

At least, that was true until the courts started to allow random stops for drunk driving checks. A complete, willful violation of the Constitution, but hey, if it saves a life...for the chiiiiillddreeennn!, after all.

The Constitution is already dead. We're arguing over a moment that came and went years ago.

Max

Re:beat the system

[kruczkowski]

Becouse in Germany you are not allowed to cover your licence plate with anything. What pissed me off in Florida is how temp licence plates are a cheap paper and people place them behind a tinted window inside the car. What do you do when the car hit and runs you?

As a side note I saw the company who does the image recognition software at CeBIT - they guy was showing it off and it's quite impressive (from a technical view)

Re:beat the system

[Moofie]

You might think that "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear!" is a good recipe for a civil society, but the American founding fathers disagree with you. And I agree wit them.

Police power is ALWAYS abused. Always. That's why we need to be very careful when we extend that power.

Re:beat the system

[Clockwork Apple]

The plate is there so they can identify me if I do have commited a crime. Not so I can be added to a list of suspects of a possibilty of a crime.

It is not there so a computer can look up my record because I have the nerve to drive through a town that is WAY too upper class for me to have any business there.

This isnt 1984 folks this is a evilly rich town throwing out he riffraff. Its just fucking automated, Police enforced, Economic discrimination.

They want to catch burgalers hehehe. Wanna bet the system turns up (and ignores) more embezzelers and tax cheats on the average day?

It's trivial to beat the system - Cloning

[Moderation abuser]

In fact it's utterly trivial to beat the cameras, and the criminals do it every day, in their *thousands* in the UK.

We have what can only be described as comprehensive coverage by CCTV and speed cameras here, including automatic numberplate recognition cameras for the congestion charging zone in London.

If you want to get round the cameras, simply copy down the numberplate of a car of similar make, model and colour, have a plate made and put it on yours. Simple.

Thousands of people in the UK are now automatically being issued invalid speeding tickets (and having their licenses removed) from cloned cars and are being charged for driving in London when they were never there. And it's up to you to prove your innocence because they have photos of "your" vehicle.

Static, automatic camera systems are useless, it needs police on the ground manually checking license plates and even that only catches a miniscule fraction of them.

Are you fit to pass through Manalapan, pilgrim?

[Zhe Mappel]

First of all, let's equip police to do their jobs. There's no good reason why police shouldn't have instant access to all criminal data. They should (and already largely do). But that isn't what's at issue here.

The presumption in Manalapan is that everyone passing through the rare ethers of this wealthy preserve is a criminal. That is why it is outfitting its police with the technology of presumptive guilt: until you come up clear on the scope, you're just another creep to Manalapan's finest.

This is the M.O. of the Stasi or KGB. That it's happening in America in 2004 isn't terribly surprising, even if it's depressing. Fattened on freedom they imagine will last forever, Americans in recent years have become absurdly lax about their rights--not to mention stupidly ignorant of how they were obtained. We scarcely had any significant applications of privacy in our case law until the major 20th century expansion of civil liberties by the courts in the 1950s and 1960s. Prior to this era, the cops did damn well what they pleased. It's no secret that powerfule forces want to turn back the clock, or that you can turn on talk radio and hear some fool damning "activist judges" for elaborating the Bill of Rights.

Since the 1980s, Americans have learned to do as we are told. We have been trained to pee in a cup as a condition of employment. We have made nary a noise as our health records have been divulged to corporations. We have meekly submitted to increasing searches of our persons and cars (and, in a hideous irony, have even been sold back these humiliations on TV in shows like "COPS"). We have sheepishly allowed the weed of the Patriot Act to take root and spread. And we have even eagerly, in the thousands, volunteered to help John Ashcroft spy on our neighbors. Poll after poll in the past twenty years has shown a majority willing to give up its rights for the latest crusade, whether the "war on drugs" or lately, against terrorism. But what does it profit a nation to win these "wars" when its society ends up resembling the miserable failures of totalitarianism?

As demonstrated by its abusive new surveillance, Manalapan holds passersby in rich contempt. Maybe they're right.

Bush? Er, no ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

Why do so many Slashdotters think that Bush and his minions would be the ones to abuse this type of system?

Ever think it might be the crowd who wants the "village" to raise your child?

Re:beat the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh,well, heck, let's just outlaw cars altogether...then there is absolutely no chance that someone can kidnap a kid and avoid the law, etc. eh? This kind of incredibly dense thinking is what allows politicians, fascists, etc. to take control of ordinary citizens lives. If someone kidnaps a kid, etc., then it is the job of the police and the public to find and jail the guilty, using several methods of id, rather than identify each and every innoncent person who happens to be driving by...sheesh...get a grip!

Small Town on the Coast...who cares?

[fraudrogic]

Population (year 2000): 321
Males: 156 (48.6%), Females: 165 (51.4%)

Elevation: 4 feet

County: Palm Beach

Land area: 0.5 square miles

Zip code: 33462

Median resident age: 61.3 years
Median household income: $127,819 (year 2000)
Median house value: $943,200 (year 2000)

It's a small town on the Florida east coast where about 0.05% of you would ever travel through. Actually, you can't even travel "through" the town, looking at the map shows that it's an island seperated by some intercoastal waterway from the mainland.

Now if they implemented this in Miami, Orlando, Tampa, or Jax, then I'd be worried...

Sounds like a bunch of old paranoid geezers (Median resident age: 61.3 years).

Re:beat the system

[m.h.2]

I'm probably just throwing gasoline on this fire, but...
I'm won't argue with your feelings/beliefs about privacy. I respect your opinions and your right to have them. I *will*, however, argue your point that police power is always abused. Apparently, you do not know very many police officers. I do, and I will say that there are certainly abuses that occur, but to use the word 'always' is not only inflammatory, it's irresponsible and wrong. In my many encounters (good and bad) with police officers, most of the officers were very professional and behaved according to the law and codes of conduct to which they have been sworn to uphold, regardless of the behavior of the person with whom they were dealing. Just because FOX new s shows a weekly clip of a police officer behaving badly doesn't mean you should form a generalized opinion of a large group of individuals.
We do not need to be careful about extending powers because they are ALWAYS abused. We need to be careful because they COULD BE abused.

Sounds Like Another Libertarian Fanatic

[reallocate]

The point isn't to identify every innocent person who drives by. The point is to find a car bearing a known tag as soon as possible. There aren't many cops on the streets looking for that car, so this is all to the good. A license plate is, in fact, a method of ID, so this fits within your rather odd paramaters.

Or, do you think cops chasing criminals is just a cute little game?

Re:beat the system

[Draknor]

I think the poster meant in the general sense, police power will be abused. I am sure this country is full of many excellent police officers. However, there are always a few bad apples (in every profession, not just law enforcement), and there's always the bureaucracy and politicians (whom I actually fear more!).

I think it is fair to say that, given sufficient time, someone will abuse those extended powers. Given a little more time, people will come to accept those abuses as standard operating procedure, and new powers will be extended - its an evolutionary slippery slope. All in the name of "for the children", "stopping crime", "war on terror", $CAUSE_OF_THE_WEEK. And frankly, I find it difficult to believe we will be able to reverse this slide, unless we have some real libertarian visionaries step forward and get elected to government.

Re:beat the system

[Mattintosh]

In that case, the cops will just have to *gasp* do some good, old investigation to find the criminal! Oh, the humanity! Think of the children!