Slashdot Mirror


"Mobile Plate Hunter" Cameras Raise Questions

The Washington Post has a story on "Minority Report"-style license-plate scanners that mount on police cars. They are the size of softballs, cost $25K, and can scan and run thousands of plates a day through the local Motor Vehicle Administration database. The easy mission creep these devices encourage is summarized in the article: "Initially purchased to find stolen cars, a handful of so-called tag readers are in use across the Washington region to catch not just car thieves, but also drivers who neglected or failed their emissions inspections or let their insurance policies lapse. The District and Prince George's County use them to enforce parking rules... 'I just think it makes us a lot more effective and a lot more efficient in how our time is being used,' [a senior detective] said." The article doesn't mention what happens to the data on legal plates. Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?

580 comments

  1. It's misnamed by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about the "Mobile Revenue Generator"?

    1. Re:It's misnamed by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      I came to say this as well.

      Good way to maintain the status quo.

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    2. Re:It's misnamed by mikek2 · · Score: 1

      x3

    3. Re:It's misnamed by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      Me Too

      /AOL

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    4. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... if my emissions are past due I'll just remember to put a fake "Tag applied for" paper on my car...

    5. Re:It's misnamed by couchslug · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fine with me, since I keep insurance and don't want uninsured drivers (who cannot compensate me for any damage they do) on the roads.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "So... if my emissions are past due I'll just remember to put a fake "Tag applied for" paper on my car..."

      Ahh.....it is SO nice to live in states where they don't do that emissions sniff test or anything. I can mod my car as I wish.

      That being said...I think this shows now more than ever that we need some kind of functioning method that will somehow mask the number from cameras and these type scanners, yet leave the plates readable by human eyes. A tough thing indeed...but, there has to be something that would screw with the non-organic readers. Too bad there isn't some kind of auto-sensing method to find cameras and the like and fire a laser or something back at them, blinding the optical receptors on the machines.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:It's misnamed by sssssss27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Couldn't you just put some sort of LCD cover over it and then capitalize on the fact that cameras have different refresh rates than human eyes? Kind of how you can see the scan lines on a CRT with a camera but you can't with the naked eye.

    8. Re:It's misnamed by kunwon1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?

      --
      Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
    9. Re:It's misnamed by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, your pedantic point is correct and noted.
      Now, over in the common sense corner, how many people do you know with enough liquidity to cover more than a minor fender-bender who lack proper insurance (or a bond, as allowed in some states).
      I'm guessing the answer is a small-ish number.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    10. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      "Just put a film over the plate that blocks visibility from above but not from a straight on view..."

      Well, there are products out there that profess to do that, but, on Mythbusters...they showed that they didn't work...

      :(

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:It's misnamed by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should obviously look to the UK for this kind of product:
      http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/argtec.htm

      Also films, sprays, etc:
      http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=number+plate+speed+camera

      But it seems like a lot of effort to save a few seconds getting to work in the morning :-S

    12. Re:It's misnamed by Forbman · · Score: 2, Informative

      and, just because they do have insurance doesn't mean that you will be compensated, either. Do you think your insurance company is not going to try and find some sort of out so that they don't have to pay you?

    13. Re:It's misnamed by neokushan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what do you do when they pass a law to make obscuring your license plate (even if only for electronic devices) illegal?
      Rather than waste energy avoiding the problem of these cameras, I dare say your energy would be better spent fighting their use all together.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    14. Re:It's misnamed by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know people that "drive dirty" (i.e. no insurance or expired tags or license), without exception they all also has a chemical or alcohol abuse problem... and that's the last people you want on the same road as you. I also know some very poor people that manage to maintain their insurance, paying by the month. So I have to agree with you, bad as I hate paying that insurance bill, I want the people that can do me damage to also be insured... and I'm OK with automatically checking that. In the end, freedom only works if free people act in a responsible manner. If you don't like a law or the way it is enforced, change the people running the show... don't expect wonderful advances in information handling to be disregarded by governments, they are just people that work for you, make new rules for them to follow... or they will.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    15. Re:It's misnamed by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Use a bunch of IR LEDs. Cameras see IR, eyes don't.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    16. Re:It's misnamed by bluelip · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's easier, just put IR LEDs around your plate and blind the camera.

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    17. Re:It's misnamed by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rather than waste energy avoiding the problem of these cameras, I dare say your energy would be better spent fighting their use all together.

      Why? If somebody's driving around in a stolen car, I want them caught and arrested. If somebody has warrants out for their arrest and recognizing their plates helps the cops grab them, great - It cost me a little less to pay cops to apprehend them because they were caught in traffic instead of being stalked and grabbed.

      Some laws are BS and some warrants are served based on those BS laws. I've spent a good deal of time breaking them openly and was always willing to serve the consequences if caught. But whining about cops having computers that can run checks on license plates is just silly. If you're going to that level, object to having the identifier on your car or go 'Civil Disobedience' and drive around without plates. But don't just whine because your publicly displayed identifier is being checked against known offenses. You may as well bitch because your picture is posted in a post-office with the word 'Wanted' above it. Automation is a sensible too and the solution to the real problem isn't to allow law-breakers to hide - It's to catch and convict law-breakers, fight the hell out of the legal system when people are going away for BS reasons, and continue to openly fight BS laws instead of trying to hide from enforcement.

      Claiming to break the law as a right of 'Civil Disobedience' while hiding from law enforcement is cowardly and counter-productive.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:It's misnamed by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Modded funny, but... here in the Netherlands fines have become just that: a revenue generator. A few years ago fines were still counted as "extra" revenue, then a controversial change in policy made them part of the general budget of the national government, then annual targets for revenues from fines were introduced ("Don't go to the Zeeland bailiwick, they aren't meeting their fine target this year so they'll do you for as little as a smudged reariew mirror!"). And now fines are being earmarked for specific purposes. When another idiotic plan was announced last year (free textbooks for schoolgoing children), the minister informed us that these books were to be paid for by increased traffic fines.

      By the same token, the new mandatory ID law serves as a nice "fine doubler": if you get stopped for anything fine-worthy and fail to show an ID, they slap on another 50 Euro. Maybe that's why they want RFID chips in ID cards, so that thet can drive around in a manner similar to the one in the article, and round up everyone not carrying ID.

      Sometimes I feel like I am living in a novel that's a bad mix of Ayn Rand and George Orwell.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    19. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what, like a captcha?

      here in florida, its illegal to modify the location of or cover your plate beyond some very specific guidelines. nobody follows that law, but im sure that if it ever got into a courtroom, its a definitive win for the government. Your results may vary state to state.

    20. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that's not the point. The point is that it's better to have a few uninsured idiots breaking the law than to have innocent people's privacy infringed upon.

    21. Re:It's misnamed by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, over in the common sense corner, how many people do you know with enough liquidity to cover more than a minor fender-bender who lack proper insurance ...I'm guessing the answer is a small-ish number.

      Vanishingly small! People who have money have insurance not to pay for body work costs in minor fender benders, but to shield their assets from liability from lawsuits. If you're in an accident and the other guy gets the slightest idea that you might have money, there's a very real possibility that he'll suddenly develop all sorts of nebulous neck and back pain. The only time rich folks post a bond rather than pay for insurance is when they're driving something otherwise uninsurable, like certain exotic sports cars.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    22. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine with me too, because justice never makes mistakes, and the innocent are never falsly accused, prosecuted, punished, lives ruined. In fact, I'm putting a police webcam IN MY CAR, just for security. /sarcasm

      You're a moron.

    23. Re:It's misnamed by nmb3000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cameras see IR, eyes don't.

      Cameras also usually have filters over the lens to block out infra-red. IR sources are common enough that unless you _want_ to see it, you almost certainly _want_ to block it.

      I skimmed TFA and didn't see any mention, but unless these cameras depend on IR to function, putting IR LEDs around your plate won't do much.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    24. Re:It's misnamed by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?

      You're right - A lack of insurance doesn't imply that they can't compensate you.

      But there's a very high degree of correlation between persons who drive without insurance and people who won't compensate you.

      Judge the causation/correlation issue however you want. Uninsured drivers tend to fail to take account for at-fault accidents. Whether it's a direct causation effect or not is a moot point - Folks w/o insurance tend to skip out on the bill and I'll happily pony up on gambling odds if you want to volunteer to cover their unpaid damages trying to defend a lack of proof of causation.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    25. Re:It's misnamed by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd expect cameras for use at night to include IR illumination, and no filters. Same way security cameras do.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    26. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Why? If somebody's driving around in a stolen car, I want them caught and arrested. If somebody has warrants out for their arrest and recognizing their plates helps the cops grab them, great - It cost me a little less to pay cops to apprehend them because they were caught in traffic instead of being stalked and grabbed."

      The trouble is...there is really no way to mandate what 'else' can be done with this information. They're also scanning innocent peoples' plates. What is done with that information? What will be done with it in the future? Let's say they start using this to map out where everyone is during the day...time and location stored. Let's say you drove somewhere and were scanned...and a major crime had happened in that area? Guess what, you are automagically now on a suspects list. Sure..you may get cleared, but, what if by strange circumstances, you aren't cleared for awhile. Personally, I don't wanna ever be on a 'list' such as that. Innocent people do get caught and falsely charged these days even without this kind of tech, this only adds great possibilities.

      With all the hoopla of an Amber alert going off, man, I'd hate to even have it known I was in the neighborhood where a child crime happened. These days, it is so easy to be guilty until proven innocent in cases like this. Ask the Ramsey's about that one.

      Ok...what if you are in a bad marriage...and this info shows you were at the 'hop on inn' with a girl, and then these records are then available for divorce lawyers. Sure, it might not be a nice or moral thing to do, but, it isn't the business of the state to be collecting personal information on you like this.

      And, there is no law or regulations saying what is to be done with innocent scanned plates. There is nothing preventing it from being one more way to store information about the populace. And so far, I've not seen a 'tool' given to law enforcement that has not had new and creative ways of using, not foreseen by the creators of said technology or law..

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:It's misnamed by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm not disagreeing with you at ALL, I'm simply pointing out the flaw in the above posters train of thought.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    28. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      that and covering your license plate with anything is illegal in many states

    29. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know; my first thought was, 25K? The police got ripped off again. I mean, an algorithm that recognizes car plates isn't all that hard; that plus some cheap CCD camera along with a small flash drive, some cheap microprocessor....25K? That thing better be plated with platinum!

    30. Re:It's misnamed by Snaller · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if when your wife can look up your visit to a hooker that's ok too, eh? ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    31. Re:It's misnamed by tomz16 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do NOT pass go... It's also easy to put a better IR filter on a camera...

    32. Re:It's misnamed by KGIII · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Bay County, Florida, you didn't even need to have your vehicle inspected at all. Florida has some odd laws.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:It's misnamed by vk2 · · Score: 1

      You missed to include the bribe^H^H^H^H^H political donations and politician's spouses' weekly consultation fees in the 25K.

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    34. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering you can't pay for anything with fiat currency but only discharge debt it's a moot point.
      But your probably a federal reserve slave so back to your regularly scheduled "programing"

    35. Re:It's misnamed by jabernathy · · Score: 1

      Ok...what if you are in a bad marriage...and this info shows you were at the 'hop on inn' with a girl, and then these records are then available for divorce lawyers. Sure, it might not be a nice or moral thing to do, but, it isn't the business of the state to be collecting personal information on you like this.

      And, there is no law or regulations saying what is to be done with innocent scanned plates. There is nothing preventing it from being one more way to store information about the populace. And so far, I've not seen a 'tool' given to law enforcement that has not had new and creative ways of using, not foreseen by the creators of said technology or law..

      I guess what it all boils down to is how much anonymity citizens have the right to in public. If it isn't right for the state to collect information about where you are in public then it also shouldn't be right for private companies to do so. What if they implemented the system in such a way that the database record of bad plates only had two fields: plate number and the reason it's in there? That would remove the connection between plate number and the owner of the car (at least in the scanning system). Officers would have to look up the plates manually if they wanted more information.

    36. Re:It's misnamed by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then where do we draw the line between "useful for the police" and "could be misused"? Surely it's arbitrary. If your real concern is possible misuse, then your real problem is not with the tool, but the people in control of it. How about instead of using the denial of technology to ensure the cops are not screwing with law-abiding people, you actually get a proper police force that won't misuse its abilities, or at least is heavily punished if it does decide to transgress. Using bureaucracy to protect people is a shoddy, half-assed, ridiculous idea. If the cops are the problem - fix the cops. If we go down the "ooh this could be misused" route, we can't have cops, as they could be corrupt. Clearly that's not a sustainable approach to law enforcement.

    37. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The trouble is...there is really no way to mandate what 'else' can be done with this information.

      I'm happy for them to do absolutely anything with it - provided that all the license plate tracking information, including that of politicians and off-duty police, is a matter of public record.

      (And I don't mean "Pay us $150 for processing and we'll mail you a partial copy of one intersection's tracking records.". I mean "Information from these cameras is posted immediately to a website with several independent mirrors, in an unambiguous format. In fact, this is the same website from which the police obtain this information.".)

    38. Re:It's misnamed by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Probably fewer times, if someone would actually get it right for once.

    39. Re:It's misnamed by ben2umbc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I witnessed my friend get pulled over due to this about an hour before the story was posted on /. (We are both pizza delivery drivers). We are in Howard County, MD which is indeed inside the sphere of Washington DC Metro Area. He was stopped for an insurance violation, which - guess what - turned out to be false.

      In a way, I like the use of these cameras - for now - as I have nothing outstanding on my name, and it should keep the cops tied up stopping other people who aren't me. But at what price? I don't think the cops should be spending their time pulling over the common public just because a computer said so.

      I also don't see this as a big revenue generator as those are mostly speeders and red light runners, oh, and they have cameras for those all over MD already. I speculate these were purchased through DHS grants in the name of catching terrorists. Unfortunately it is now the police who appear to be the terrorists.

    40. Re:It's misnamed by TeraCo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " don't think the cops should be spending their time pulling over the common public just because a computer said so. "

      What if the government spent billions hiring enough police that they could call the insurance companies manually for each car that drove past? Would that be suitable? This is exactly the same, it's just more efficient. Why do you hate efficiency!

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    41. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "How about instead of using the denial of technology to ensure the cops are not screwing with law-abiding people, you actually get a proper police force that won't misuse its abilities, or at least is heavily punished if it does decide to transgress."

      Well, in theory, your idea would be the right way to go, however, in real live practice, it just isn't gonna happen. People in power, will do the wrong thing....human nature. It is easier to deny them the tech. The thing is...once they have the new 'tool'....even if laws are passed to limit its use, a few years down the line, when new people are in charge of the system, they will lament how they 'need' the extra powers...maybe to help against terrorists or something.

      It has happened time and time again. It happens not just with tech, but, with laws...they're using Patriot Act stuff now for drug investigations. RICO isn't just for gangsters any more, they are using it in new and creative ways. They can and will do the same for tech.

      The bottom line of what I'm saying is, we have to be VERY judicious in what we allow law enforcement and those in political power to use as a tool of any type because the temptation is there at some point, to go beyond what the tool was granted for.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:It's misnamed by ben2umbc · · Score: 1

      I take back what I said about the funding for these, as I clearly had not read the story yet. I still disagree that these are revenue generators. Perhaps they are better termed Revenue Generation Enforcement by getting people to pay for mistakes they had previously weaseled out of. Its the red light cameras, and speed cameras that are the cash cows of the local police departments.

    43. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I guess what it all boils down to is how much anonymity citizens have the right to in public. If it isn't right for the state to collect information about where you are in public then it also shouldn't be right for private companies to do so."

      Well, I for one wish to fight to keep as much of that right to anonymity as possible, as we have had in the past generations. I hope we can limit the invasion of that anonymity as much as possible by new technologies, especially if it is in the hands of the state. The state can destroy you and take your freedom, and in some cases, take your life 'legally'.

      With your 2nd point, I agree....we DO need to do more to limit what private corporations can do to yoru anonymity and personal information. We need to tighten this up now if possible, because these days the state is bypassing rules and regulations on their abilities to monitor and gather intel on private citizens, by purchasing it from the private corporations.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    44. Re:It's misnamed by bluelip · · Score: 1

      VERY good point. /me scratches head.

      Stronger LEDs?

      Can anyone think of a what to (ab)use the interlacing on a CCD? I'm thinking along the lines the way corduroy pants end up looking odd in digital pcs.

      Any transparent LCDs out there that could alter the image such as making a '0' into an '8'? Such a system could be disabled from inside the vehicle?

      How about old-school? My jeep is stained w/ mud already, why not add some to the license plate? )Besides the laws prohibiting this naturally.

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    45. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a good thing I stopped having my car inspected...

    46. Re:It's misnamed by XorNand · · Score: 3, Informative

      I drove on expired plates for over a year and without car insurance for over three years. I certainly did not have any type of substance abuse problems; I simply could not afford it. At first I was unemployed and then I was struggling as a self-employed computer geek. While driving, I was paranoid most of the time, but that $150/mo. was *huge*. I spent less than that on food (ramen, eggs, and peanut butter) each month. Yes, it was foolish, but those are the choices I was faced with.

      Now that I've had a fulltime job for a couple of years, I carry auto insurance, renter's insurance, dental/vision/health, plus I even pay for supplemental AD&D coverage. If an ininsured motorist would hit me, I'd certainly be pissed, but I'd also empathize. Not everyone without insurance is a drunk/crackhead as you imply.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    47. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do that in the US too. One of the problems with gas prices going up is that people are compensating by driving less.

      This has led quite a few cities into a financial crisis. Problem #1 is that with gas usage down, gas tax revenues are down, so the money to spend on road repair is down. (Which, if you've ever driven in the US, you might be surprised to learn that, yes, roads are occasionally repaired around here.)

      Problem #2 is that with fewer drivers on the road, they're making less money on parking and traffic fines. So the police compensate by... well, you know the rest.

    48. Re:It's misnamed by tomz16 · · Score: 3, Informative

      VERY good point. /me scratches head.

      Stronger LEDs?

      Nope... you can make dielectric thin film filters with some pretty bitchin extinctions...

      Can anyone think of a what to (ab)use the interlacing on a CCD? I'm thinking along the lines the way corduroy pants end up looking odd in digital pcs.

      Nope... good thought, but there's no way.

      Any transparent LCDs out there that could alter the image such as making a '0' into an '8'? Such a system could be disabled from inside the vehicle?

      Yes... of course... But nothing that would even be remotely legal... and, if you are going to blatantly ignore the law, then why not just use a marker, or completely attempt to forge/steal your plate?

      How about old-school? My jeep is stained w/ mud already, why not add some to the license plate? )Besides the laws prohibiting this naturally.

      Yeah... that will obviously work, but AFAIK obscuring your plate is a violation that can get you pulled over.

    49. Re:It's misnamed by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?

      A person driving without insurance is breaking the law for starters. That person is acting irresponsible. What are the chances that this irresponsible person has put a few hundred thousand dollars into a fund that they can use for payment if they cause some serious injury to you? What are the chances that this irresponsible person will try anything to avoid payment? For example, if that person injures you on a lonely road without witnesses, what are the chances that they will call an ambulance to help you, which would mean they will be in serious trouble with the police plus face major cost for paying for your damages? In an accident with an insured driver, your chances of survival are much higher.

    50. Re:It's misnamed by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      The point is that it's better to have a few uninsured idiots breaking the law than to have innocent people's privacy infringed upon.

      As long as the State, who willingly lets this happens, setups a special fund to **PROPERLY** indemnify the victims of uninsured drivers.

    51. Re:It's misnamed by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      $150 a month for minimum legal coverage, really? In AZ it's about $40 a month... and I used to spend more than that on cigarettes (I dropped that habit due to illness, best coma that ever happened to me, I woke up a non-smoker). I was simply relating my own experience in this area, not implying that each unlawful motorist is also a drug or alcohol addict. Maybe it would be better if the insurance was built into the cost of fuel. While coverage would be less avoidable, that is also less palatable to me personally. In any case I still don't have a problem with seeking illegal cars and drivers with technology... mainly because it is unrealistic to expect people to not use the tools in front of them, no matter who they work for.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    52. Re:It's misnamed by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I was simply relating my own experience in this area, not implying that each unlawful motorist is also a drug or alcohol addict.

      Indeed, you did not imply it. You outright stated it:

      without exception they all also has a chemical or alcohol abuse problem

    53. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      While i agree that all of your examples would be painful, the simple fact is when you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy. Too many people equate anonymity with privacy.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    54. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but there are plenty of alternatives to driving. If you don't want to be checked use public transport, go by bike, etc.

      People seem to regard driving as a right instead of privilege. That's wrong. Driving kills many people every year, and it severely pollutes the environment and uses oil.

      I'm all in favor of using license plates to track criminals more effectively.

    55. Re:It's misnamed by MacDork · · Score: 1

      But don't just whine because your publicly displayed identifier is being checked against known offenses.

      Yeah, tell that to one of these cops when you want their badge number. Go ahead, take a picture smarty. They'll break your camera or your face, and they'll DARE you to do something about it.

    56. Re:It's misnamed by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Yes but somewhere between my cell phone records, my credit card purchases, my ATM withdrawls, my debit charges, message posts from forums, instant message logs, visibility by friends and family etc etc etc... it becomes VERY easy to track my every movement.

      I probably have an alleby if even a weak one for every 15 minutes of my life (ignoring sleep) and even then my cell phone could possibly be used as evidence if they believed it was actually with me.

      Honestly what I care about more than the government knowing where I am... is a second, third, fourth and fifth set of data which corroborates where I was. If the government has my license plate supposedly on third and madison but I have a credit card purchase, gas purchases and an ATM withdrawl in another city it becomes more difficult to frame me.

      I'm not at all concerned about getting framed... but in a police state where people are being held without proof or evidence you're already WELLL past the point where them knowing where I am is a concern. If I'm going to get a fair trial then the more shop security cameras, cell phone tracking etc etc that is independent of the government the better.

      It becomes an arms race. The more things tracking me the more things a big brother government has to forge. If they STILL forge 4 stores, 3 credit card purchases and a cell phone log then it doesn't matter if they ACTUALLY caught you on a government at all... they can just make shit up. This is why I'm so unconcered about government privacy. If I get arrested for being critical of the government... I've got much bigger issues than being 'caught'.

    57. Re:It's misnamed by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      When you got violent thugs running around unchecked electronic tracking is the least of your concerns. They don't need evidence to beat your face in.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    58. Re:It's misnamed by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Ahh, but there is the magic of insurance, unless you are stupid and didn't read your policy, if the other driver's insurance refuses to pay, yours typically is required to. Then it becomes a battle for the lawyers and no longer has anything to do with you.

      I've been in enough accidents over the years to see this play out, as long as you are not using some company that advertises aggressively towards people with a "less than perfect" driving record, generally the insurance company will not go out of its way to fuck you over.

    59. Re:It's misnamed by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Most states already have laws that make it a misdemeanor fine for having an obscured plate.

      Mud, having it in your window where it was difficult to read, etc will get you a fine if the cop is bored enough to pull you over in Missouri.

      There are tons of little fines they can pull you over for, but generally those are the excuse in order to check your identity and see if you are wanted or to take a peek in your car for contraband.

      Most criminals are caught do to vehicle and traffic violations, unlike in the movies, where everything is dramatic gun battles and last minute saves.

    60. Re:It's misnamed by janrinok · · Score: 1

      We had the same discussion last year regarding the use of traffic cameras in the UK. And it all boils down to 'they could be misused'. And so I offer the following for the paranoid amongst you.

      Let's get rid of all cars/autos. They could be misused during a bank robbery or other crime.

      Let's ban the ownership of guns and other weapons. They could be misused to kill someone.

      Let's ban the use of the internet. It could be misused by terrorists or pedophiles.

      Let's ban the use of aircraft. They could be misused by terrorists to mount an attack on an iconic target.

      Let's ban the use of television. It could be misused by the Government to spread evil propaganda.

      What's that I hear? You don't agree? Oh, I see. YOU can be trusted to use such things responsibly, it those OTHER nasty folk who must be prevented from having such access. Well, that makes it quite clear to me now, thank you.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    61. Re:It's misnamed by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      > Use a bunch of IR LEDs. Cameras see IR, eyes don't.

      Most CMOS and CCD cameras today incorporate filters which block wavelengths above c. 700 nanometres. This is particularly annoying in the context of DSLRs, which require a hardware hack to remove the filter for serious astrophotography.

      Even the much-vaunted Canon D20a retained the IR filter, despite being targeted at astronomers, though it was tweaked for sensitivity in the red end of the visible spectrum around 650 nanometres.

    62. Re:It's misnamed by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I dare say your energy would be even better spent paying your insurance and getting your car inspected. Jim Carrey's character's legal advice in Liar Liar comes to mind, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!"

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    63. Re:It's misnamed by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      We've had automatic number recognition camera systems in the UK for a while now, and they're repidly growing in number. There's already many on major roads, and of course the London congestion charge (daily fee to drive into the city centre) is enforced by saturating the city centre with them. The police use them too, though I'm not aware of them being routined fitted to patrol vehicles yet, just special DVLA enforcement squads.

      They mean the government has the growing power to watch and record everywhere that ordinary people drive, and keep that information for years. It's very similar to having everyones DNA on a police database, another thing the UK government is doing by adding virtually everyone that is arrested, regardless of whether they are found guilty of an offence or even charged.

      It's part of a growing, automated and routine state invasion of ordinary innocent (and guilty) people's lives, on the off chance they might catch them up to something wrong at the time - or provide tracking data on them after the event.

      No doubt it helps them catch the odd extra civil offence.

      Yet what about false positives? Databases are only as good as the data handling, and the UK DNA database alone is known to be riddled with inaccurate records. Heaven knows what happens if the record of your number plate being tagged ends up recorded in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or, as is happening in the UK, those records become available to people with less than pure motives.

      Having a policeman follow you round everywhere you go while in public, watching what you do and where you go to catch you if you break any laws would be one way to try and catch criminals. Yet we'd legitimately call that a police state. Cameras, including ANR cameras allow the police to do much more of this without deploying actual policemen.

      We both live in supposedly free civil societies, where innocent people expect to be able to go about their lives in privacy. Police supposedly have to work by rules regarding searches, invasion of our homes, tapping of phones, and reading our mail because we as a society value our right as free men to go about our business without suspicion, with good cause being needed to pull us over, and "papers please".

      ANR cameras and state CCTV systems, along with phone taps and email monitoring are just some examples of the state ignoring our civil liberties in exchange for 'security' in recent years. You guys threw off British tyranny once. Please don't go importing our worst ideas now and allow your own government to impose tyranny on innocent people slowly "for your own good, citizen".

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    64. Re:It's misnamed by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      In most states, a film/covering on your license plate is an offence in itself

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    65. Re:It's misnamed by cliffski · · Score: 1

      what about speeding? you cool with that too? even dangerous speeding outside a school. still cool? what about when your kid gets smeared over the tarmac? still cool?
      Or would you be first in line to argue why the hell hadn't someone caught this speeding lunatic before he did this?

      Personally I object paying more in car insurance to cover the damage done by irresponsible jerks without insurance. Fine the bastards.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    66. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the way corduroy pants end up looking odd

      Moiré? Most cameras use an anti-aliasing filter.

    67. Re:It's misnamed by cliffski · · Score: 1

      you are talking about something that works in all weathers, times of day and lighting conditions, spotting all different styles of plates at different angles, with reflections, dirt etc, differentiating between plates and bumper stickers or other signs and lettering.

      Having a gadget that passes a test in the lab is a different kettle of fish to one that works out in the real world.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    68. Re:It's misnamed by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's no biggy. We've had ANPR systems in the UK for years now, both static and mobile systems in police cars. What's the difference between a cop reading off a license plate over the radio (or manually punching it into a terminal) - which is what they've done for at least forty years - and the gizmo doing it automatically? It only triggers on unlicensed / uninsured cars. Admittedly there are some teething troubles and data accuracy issues, but hey, if a few dozen innocent motorists having their cars crushed (yeah, they do that) saves me (and every other motorist in the country) a few quid on my insurance, I'm all in favour. Yeah, I'm in a "fuck civil liberties, make the trains run on time" sorta mood today, probably I'll be thinking straight after more coffee... bit groggy after staying up all night to watch the latest Falcon fiasco...

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    69. Re:It's misnamed by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      No, he stated that the ones he knew had "a chemical or alcohol abuse problem" which is not a statement that "each unlawful motorist [in existence] is also a drug or alcohol addict".

    70. Re:It's misnamed by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      In the end, freedom only works if free people act in a responsible manner.

      So all I need, if I wish to take away freedom on the basis of it "not working", is to induce some people to act irresponsibly.

    71. Re:It's misnamed by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Splendid point. I figured the bond was just in the case of someone who hates insurance companies, but your use case is more plausible.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    72. Re:It's misnamed by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm happy for them to do absolutely anything with it - provided that all the license plate tracking information, including that of politicians and off-duty police, is a matter of public record.

      You probably wouldn't be so happy after your house got burgled because the criminal knew you were away on a long driving trip. Of course, exactly the same thing could be done by a corrupt policeman, which is why the data shouldn't be collected in the first place.

      Rich.

    73. Re:It's misnamed by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I want car thieves caught too, however I also recognise that freedom for citizens requires restraint on government power. The trick is finding an acceptable balance so that you have a government that can be effective but not oppressive. If you look at the bill of rights, they all make things more difficult for the government.

      Any government will be imperfect, that being the nature of people, and will have some degree of ineffectiveness and oppressiveness. In my opinion, the balance is leaning to far to the oppressiveness side at the moment. Correcting that will unfortunately have some undesirable side-effects by decreasing the effectiveness in catching criminals. Like side effects of medications, that's a price worth paying in a lot of cases.

    74. Re:It's misnamed by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Those kind of problems should indeed be fixed. But drivers without insurance are a menace and they should definitely be stopped by the police. If it becomes very easy to spot them and the insurance has been gone for just a week or so, they could do without the fine and just give a stern warning.

    75. Re:It's misnamed by owlstead · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands that is a felony. I'd rather have just a ticket, if you don't mind. It's of course different if you drive a stolen car or have 20.000 tickets behind your name.

    76. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving isn't a right, it is a privilege granted by the state. If you don't like having to drive everywhere, catch a bus, get on your bicycle, walk, use a segway, etc.

      If you don't have enough alternative transport options where you live, I suggest you take this problem to your local major/elected rep. I'll wager that you can benefit in many more ways from getting around without depending on your can than you can benefit from not having the police do this.

    77. Re:It's misnamed by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      Here's my scary "Dumb Idea of the Day" In short, should I start an open-source license plate recognition project on sourceforge? It would likely encourage millions of home-based traffic snoopers world-wide... kinda scary

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    78. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you watched Mythbusters lately? It's like the MTV of science.

    79. Re:It's misnamed by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      You're in a public place. Stop whining about privacy while in public.

    80. Re:It's misnamed by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has a problem with the police using this technology to catch car thieves, finding (abandoned) stolen vehicles, and finding people with outstanding warrants.

      What people do have a problem with is using this technology to ticket people with expired license/registration/insurance. I know people who have been pulled over for expired licenses (one week past expired) in one town, let go to drive home/finish errands, and then pulled over immediately in the next town and ticketed. Its a scam...you can't drive without a license, but if it expires, how are you supposed to get to DMV without breaking the law if you have no friends or relatives or public transportation to take you there?

    81. Re:It's misnamed by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      I was at a birthday party/housewarming party yesterday, and there were some Texas DPS troopers there. They got called out from the party, and came back saying they just made the county a little richer. I'm thinking big deal, a ticket. Turns out they just nabbed 15,000, a new car, a pistol, and some pot. One of the officers there told me that they were trying to focus on drug stuff because it was more lucrative than traffic violation.

      I can see why. Boom, instant 15 grand, no payment plans, no conviction, etc.

    82. Re:It's misnamed by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They can do so in THEORY, but it isn't likely that I'd recover anything without going to court (costly to me) and then, if they are poor (the probable reason they are uninsured in the first place) I won't actually get squat.

      When some bottom-feeder in a car with no insurance and expired tags hits you, unless you carry full coverage (more expensive than liability) you are likely out of luck.

      I shouldn't have to make that effort. I carry liability insurance, and there is IMO no reason not to hammer those who don't.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    83. Re:It's misnamed by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The point is that it's better to have a few uninsured idiots breaking the law than to have innocent people's privacy infringed upon."

      The MANY uninsured idiots are a greater real threat than the theoretical threat of privacy infringement. I don't mind being "on camera" because I can potentially use that to prove my innocence. I do mind not being compensated when some bottom-feeder with no assets runs into my ride...or me.

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DB163CF930A3575AC0A966958260

      http://www.roadandtravel.com/autonewsandviews/2006/uninsureddrivers.htm

      If the man wants to track you, he can do it old-school and actually follow you. Plate scanners don't facilitate "following" because they merely confirm presence at the point of scanning.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    84. Re:It's misnamed by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "and, just because they do have insurance doesn't mean that you will be compensated, either. Do you think your insurance company is not going to try and find some sort of out so that they don't have to pay you?"

      I've had USAA for 27 years, and they paid every time.
      When the shop that repeatedly fucked up the repaint on my wifes truck wouldn't make it good, they sent an adjuster who promptly refunded her the additional money she had put in for custom work. (It still looks OK by non-expert standards, so we were content and will shoot it ourselves.)

      When my F-150 was hit by a young bitch chattering with her crew instead of driving, her insurance adjuster (GEICO) compensated me generously and paid me for a rental car. (I'm a mechanic and would know if I were being shortchanged.)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    85. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Let's get rid of all cars/autos. They could be misused during a bank robbery or other crime.

      Let's ban the ownership of guns and other weapons. They could be misused to kill someone.

      Let's ban the use of the internet. It could be misused by terrorists or pedophiles.

      Let's ban the use of aircraft. They could be misused by terrorists to mount an attack on an iconic target.

      ...Oh, I see. YOU can be trusted to use such things responsibly, it those OTHER nasty folk who must be prevented from having such access.

      Close...I don't mind the general public having access to things like this. My problem IS giving the govt. too much to work with. The general public cannot use these things against you in a court of law to remove your freedom, or even end your life, but, the government can. I don't like the idea of govt. officials being able to 'dragnet' willy-nilly out there to look for every possible crime that can be prosecuted. In this day in age, with so many laws, at any given time, most anybody could be defined as some kind of criminal, when good sense shows that is not the case. However, if someone in power wants to start harrassing you or seriously impede your life, they will now have the tools to do it.

      I'd rather err on the side of caution. In the US, our system was pretty much built from the start to engender a general suspicion of government...so that we might try to keep it in check, and maximize the freedoms the populace might have while keeping only enough power in the govt. to keep it functioning. Power should rest with the people, not the government....the govt. gets their power from the people, not the other way around.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    86. Re:It's misnamed by Junkyboy55 · · Score: 1

      Correlation does not imply causation, its just damn suspicious!

      --
      One day the world of robotics will have the answer. ... Robonauts Home
    87. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, cos if I'm such a jerk that I'm cheating on my wife, she deserves to know it!

    88. Re:It's misnamed by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      We are both pizza delivery drivers

      Posting on /.?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    89. Re:It's misnamed by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Not at all. When free people act in a irresponsible manner it causes those affected by their actions to seek legislation that then gives the state the power to limit or correct the behavior of the irresponsible people. And that is overall bad for freedom, making it smaller and damaging it.

      If you wish to take a free society away from someone all you need to do is get them to do nothing about it... you don't need any basis, just apathy.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    90. Re:It's misnamed by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Well blocking street cameras would be easy. Just put a film over the plate that blocks visibility from above but not from a straight on view (like those screens people put on their computer monitors that block viewing it from the sides). However, having these things on an actual police car is more sinister. However, assuming that the system looks for the plate in a specific location on a car, you could always take it off and put it in your back window or something to throw it off...

      Or maybe just pay your insurance? The person you run over will appreciate it.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    91. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      a prosecute could easily argue that do that would be "obstruction of justice" a felony that turns a $150.00 ticket into 2 years in prison, 2 years on parole, and of course that will cost you at least $1200.00 (24 monthly visits at $50.00 a visit) and likely a $1000.00 fine to boot.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    92. Re:It's misnamed by ben2umbc · · Score: 1

      You've never had a second job? The economy sucks - thanks Bush :-)

    93. Re:It's misnamed by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      The way to fix law enforcement is not to make law enforcement harder. That's just stupid.

      The way to fix law enforcement is to make it easier and more transparent.

      If we could magically find and convict everyone of every crime they'd every committed, tomorrow, I'd be all for it. It might get rid of some of the bullshit laws out there.

      Until then, I have no problem with the police knowing everywhere I'm at, everything I do, every second of the day...and them rotting in prison if they decide to reveal any of that to anyone else, outside the bounds of prosecuting me for a crime.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    94. Re:It's misnamed by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Of course, exactly the same thing could be done by a corrupt policeman, which is why we shouldn't have corrupt policemen in the first place.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    95. Re:It's misnamed by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yet we'd legitimately call that a police state.

      No we wouldn't. A police state is where the police make the laws. (Either actually passing laws or enforcing laws they just made up.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    96. Re:It's misnamed by MacDork · · Score: 1

      When you got violent thugs running around

      That's kinda my point; The only violent thugs in the stories I posted were the ones behind the badge.

    97. Re:It's misnamed by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Which, if you've ever driven in the US, you might be surprised to learn that, yes, roads are occasionally repaired around here.

      Cite, please.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    98. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it concern anyone other than me that the police are now primarily concerned with, and set specific goals to, finding and punishing people who commit "adminstrative" errors rather than the real criminals who are out harming people? The official states that they can do their job better now. How does this help them stop the real crime? While it sucks to be hit by an uninsured driver (and I have been,) which is worse: the drunk driver (who can't be caught by a plate scanner) killing a family or the uninsured driver who damages your vehicle? Instead of finding and stopping these criminals they are spending their time finding administrative errors. Am I the only one who thinks that their priorities are misplaced?

    99. Re:It's misnamed by rthille · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with the tech being something like this:
      large database of plates which are wanted for 'doing bad things'
      plate recognized, checked against database
      if match found, alert police officer of car, offense, so officer can use judgement about what to do.

      if the match isn't found, all memory of the plate should be destroyed as if the plate was never recognized.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    100. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When law enforcement becomes easier, they just make and enforce more laws. Over time, living at home becomes more and more like living in prison.

    101. Re:It's misnamed by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

      It's easier, just put IR LEDs around your plate and blind the camera.

      Normally, I'd say something along the lines of "yeah, that'll work until they put an IR filter in front of the lens", but in this case, they can't do that, as doing so would make the technology useless in low-light conditions.

      This actually seems like a really good solution. IR LEDs are cheap, and it'd be a fun hobby project for an afternoon.

      Concept: IR-transparent license plate frame. Appears normal to visual inspection, but conceals a tightly-packed ring of high power IR LEDs around the perimeter of the license plate. Hide the on/off switch in, say, the cigarette lighter (strip out the guts first), and you're all set. The system would be completely concealed, and would be fairly cheap to build.

    102. Re:It's misnamed by penginkun · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the red light cameras are of dubious legality. I'm still waiting for the first 5th amendment lawsuit against a municipality employing these things. You have the right to not incriminate yourself.

      I'm all for the police being employed to fight actual crime, but when they become the revenue enforcement agency for the city...that's not really in their mission statement. "To protect and to serve" doesn't include debt collection.

    103. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the cops should be spending their time pulling over the common public just because a computer said so.

      Suppose you do a "hit and run" on a pedestrian in New Jersey, witnesses record your plate and you just flee the state. Two weeks later you are in Texas and a cop there notices the out of state plate and runs it. At that point, the computer says..... I mean it is what the computer says right? Not like the cop has any actual clue otherwise.

    104. Re:It's misnamed by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      Sure, be all high and mighty with your law following.... pfft

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    105. Re:It's misnamed by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
      police state
          â noun - a totalitarian state in which political police secretly supervise and control citizensâ(TM) activities.

      freedictionary.com:
      police state
      Noun
      a state in which a government controls people's freedom through the police

      wikipedia.org:
      The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population... One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a seesaw, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving toward a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving toward a Free state.

      Making up the laws as you go is not required, nor does it have to be a secret police force doing it.
      It makes you a more extreme police state, but is not fundamental. South Africa under apartheid was a police state run as a democracy under the rule of law, even if those laws were abhorant.

      Having all people under constant police surveillance and enforcement regardless of their innocence sounds like pretty rigid and repressive control of freedom to me.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    106. Re:It's misnamed by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Some states already have a law against obscuring plates, but, just like the law against strong window tinting, the law is ignored.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    107. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's your responsibility to maintain insurance if you have an expensive car. Most people liabilities do not exceed $20000 anyway and the remainder will be paid by your insurance. Get an insurance with low or no deductibles and you are completely protected. It is also normally easier to tell your insurance company to pay than to deal with a driver with cheap insurance.

    108. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > automagically now on a suspects list.

      Or automagically cleared because you were (or at least your car was) provably somewhere else.

      Here is what they are already doing with stored information:

      Parking: The parking emforcer drives around recording every plate, times and position on every parking space. It is easy to compare several recordings and work out who exceeded the parking limits and send them a ticket.

      Speeding: Devices are positioned along the street or highway recording every plate with exact time. It is easy to compare the time taken by every car between each two points and calculate their average speed. If this exceeds the limit (by a small allowance) then they can be issued a speeding ticket.

    109. Re:It's misnamed by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I bet you're one of those people that want residential speed limits dropped to 10 mph just so kids have a 90% chance of surviving an impact.

      Hmm, teach kid not to play in traffic or they'll get splattered like little Johnny did a few years ago or reduce speeds to the point where you'd need about five or more collisions per kid to get it to a 50/50 chance of one of them leaving the gene pool...

      "Think of the children!" only goes to show you don't have rational argument and thus have to fall back on emotions.

    110. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judge the causation/correlation issue however you want. Uninsured drivers tend to fail to take account for at-fault accidents. Whether it's a direct causation effect or not is a moot point - Folks w/o insurance tend to skip out on the bill and I'll happily pony up on gambling odds if you want to volunteer to cover their unpaid damages trying to defend a lack of proof of causation.

      While you're at it, let's not forget the bonded (self-insured) drivers.

      Many years back, my brother in law was in the slow lane on a street. Someone in the next lane over suddenly decided to turn into a gas station. To avoid hutting him, my BIL ran up onto the curb to his right. Bad move -- no damage to the idiot, but my BIL wrecked his front end.

      Since my (insured, but not for collision damage to his own vehicle) BIL couldn't afford to fix his car, but was assured that the self-insured idiot would cover the damages, he let the repair go. It soon turned out that idiot child wasn't going to pay, so my BIL also ran through a set of front tires from the resulting misalignment.

      My sister took it upon herself to get a settlement. In the end, she damned near got a legal education.

      She got as far as trying to attach his wages but, since the idiot owned his own electronics outfit, he was entitled as owner to choose not to attach his own wages. They did get a small claims court judgment against him, but it became the responsibility of the sheriff in the idiot's own county to enforce the order. The sheriff elected to put his time in on "more important matters.

      End of story -- no recovery at all and the idiot got off scot-free. So much for collecting from the wealthy "self-insured and bonded".

    111. Re:It's misnamed by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should search people's homes and see if we cab find criminal evidence, naw, that would cost too much. I know lets stick cameras in everyones house, and have a computer search through the data automatically.

      We could also put scanners on every street corner to automatically search people as well.

      This is about the people being presumed guilty; which is very bad.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    112. Re:It's misnamed by ben2umbc · · Score: 1
      The way the cameras work though, you are not incriminated. It sends the ticket only to the registered owner of the vehicle, whose problem it becomes. Not necessarily are the person driving and the owner one and the same.

      "To protect and to serve" doesn't include debt collection.

      No. It does not.

    113. Re:It's misnamed by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Speeding: Devices are positioned along the street or highway recording every plate with exact time. It is easy to compare the time taken by every car between each two points and calculate their average speed. If this exceeds the limit (by a small allowance) then they can be issued a speeding ticket."

      Just what we need...a more efficient way of revenue generation, that's all this is plain and simple. I'm frankly not worried about "Johnny" going 10-15mph over the limit, trying to get to work to earn a living and pay taxes....I'm more worried about the gang members cruising 10mph through neighborhoods looking to shoot people, or casing houses to break into.

      Of course, the latter is more dangerous, and doesn't bring in quite the easy revenue that minor traffic violations bring in.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    114. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      they're using Patriot Act stuff now for drug investigations

      That was one of the intentions all along, you just had your alternate reality filter on. Narcotic dealers frequently use terrorist tactics to defend their turf. Narco-terrorism is one of the major destabilizing forces in the western hemisphere, it's not about political or religious philosophies, it's about the money.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    115. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? If somebody's driving around in a stolen car, I want them caught and arrested. If somebody has warrants out for their arrest and recognizing their plates helps the cops grab them, great

      No problem there -- it may be judged OK to use the stuff for the declared purpose, but when it's extended to look for expired insurance (absent an accident), that's going too far. Mission creep is insidious stuff. How long before the mother-fucking lawyers start getting the information for discovery in a divorce case. Or when the rat bastard cop gets access to it so he can keep track of his GF's whereabouts? (And don't even waste your time telling me that won't happen. All cops pee in the same pot and will "help each other out" in this way. Hell, I personally know a cop who went into the DMV computers to track down all the women in his wife's high school graduating class for current addresses. They got a 97% response. And he was one of the nicer cops I've known -- both inside and outside of my own family.)

      It cost me a little less to pay cops to apprehend them because they were caught in traffic instead of being stalked and grabbed.

      Ahhh, so there we have it, you cheap bastard. You'll sell your birthright (civil liberties) for a mess of pottage (a few bucks off on your insurance). Well, you deserve every bit of the Kafkaesque and Stalinesque horseshit that will eventually flow from your self-absorbed decision.

      Claiming to break the law as a right of 'Civil Disobedience' while hiding from law enforcement is cowardly and counter-productive.

      But not for cops to hide out of sight -- no cowardice there, eh?

    116. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been using these on cop cars here in Vancouver Canada for at least a year if not more.

      My step dad was giving me a ride after my own licence had been suspended for 1 month, the computer flagged my car because I wasn't supposed to be driving, and I wasn't. but that didn't stop the cops from giving my step dad the 3rd degree and wasting about half an hour of our time while being jerks about it.

      Its just one more excuse for them to hassle the public. If it was only being used to search for stolen cars (what the cops claimed when I asked them what was going on) that would be one thing, but its clearly being used for petty traffic violations..

    117. Re:It's misnamed by NevermindPhreak · · Score: 1

      I think the AC meant that it's easy to make a line about how the data can be used, if we can "watch the watchers", so to speak. The police won't want to keep a record of such data if they themselves get monitored as well -- making it much more likely that the data will be destroyed right after they run a license plate scan.

    118. Re:It's misnamed by elbowboy · · Score: 1

      We have had these in Chicago for a long time, but we're straightforward about their purpose. The vans they are mounted on clearly read Department of Revenue. Given the bumper to bumper street parking the cameras work pretty well as they're constantly stopped putting boots on cars.

    119. Re:It's misnamed by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is a need in California. Any time your policy lapses the insurance companies are required by law to notify DMV. Whenever you insure a vehicle DMV is also notified (I know this as I no longer have to show proof of insurance when renewing my cars).

      I'm as the parent two back said, I'm generally in favour of this, but the technology could be use for scary purposes in the wrong hands.

      Another concern I have is how many red light and speeding (actual dangerous issues) are being missed because traffic officers are busy pulling over and writing up minor violations?

      If your insurance is lapsed, an easier solution is to mail a letter stating the car may not be driven until proof of insurance is provided, and send meter maids to those homes in a week and offer 3 choices:
      1. Pay to renew your insurance on the spot
      2. Change your registration status to non-op and have them install a boot locking the wheels
      3. Have your vehicle towed

      I'm thinking this would put an end to lack of insurance. A "fee" can be charged for this "service" the same as cable companies and the like charge a fee to get your service turned back on after you've been disconnected.

    120. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I was going to say some smart-assed but I just checked and my driver's license is expired; guess I'll have to walk over and get it renewed during lunch after I ride my bycycle to work.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    121. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      We've got a no-fault system, my insurance company fixes my car, his fixes his; other than possibly suing to cover a deductible I don't normally care about the other's insurance status.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    122. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      how is have your vehicle's license plate read an invasion of privacy? Your in public, not in private at best they are reducing anonymity not privacy. An other point is they can't tell if the vehicle is being operated without insurance, only if the vehicle has no insurance policy, I maybe borrowing someone else's uninsured vehicle and my insurance is covering my public liability or public damage incurred during the operation.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    123. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Chiropractors often pay lawyer's a referral fee for sending accident "victims" to them as well as frequently getting expert witness payment for depositions.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    124. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Our state has a no-fault system and my wife totaled out her car rear-ending a county vehicle with broken tail lights. the occupations tried suing for back and retinal damage and the insurance company not only prevailed but won attorney's fees; they payed off the car without a seconds hesitation. Less than 6 months later my son borrowed our truck while we were on vacation spunout on some black ice and flipped it into the ditch and was thrown out and broke his neck and was temporarily paralysed, after all of that our rates hadn't even gone up!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    125. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False? You mean they stopped you without a valid reason. This is the excuse the Police used to stop you on the road. Police should be accountable every time they pull you over and be fined themselves for wasting your time, and allowing your pizza delivery to get cold.

    126. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Our state is so broke right now that they will not pay the state police officers overtime for court appearances, which means that they either have to pull officers off the road to go to court or have them stay on the road and miss court dates. In the US we have a constitutional right to face our accusers, so if an officer doesn't make the court date, it's an automatic dismissal, so it's stupid to not take it to court right now.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    127. Re:It's misnamed by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I maybe borrowing someone else's uninsured vehicle and my insurance is covering my public liability or public damage incurred during the operation."

      If the vehicle is uninsured it is highly likely the operator is also not covered.
      Some states anticipate such deliberate insurance coverage avoidance ruses:

      Example:
      http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc4602000/46.2-707.html

      "Any person who is the operator of such an uninsured motor vehicle and not the titled owner, who knows that the required fee has not been paid to the Commissioner, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    128. Re:It's misnamed by cizoozic · · Score: 1

      Automation is a sensible too

      As long as it's a Limited Too.

    129. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine with me, since I keep insurance and don't want uninsured drivers...

      Fine with me too, since 99% of all people, including you, commit some extremely minor infraction at one time or another, and it's high time they, and you, all start getting caught and punished for it.

    130. Re:It's misnamed by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yeah but with those worrying about surveillance technology is pointless as they don't need it to hurt you. Your bigger concern should be getting those thugs removed rather than hoping they're less dangerous if you give them fewer tools (when they already have guns and the right to fuck you over).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    131. Re:It's misnamed by julesh · · Score: 1

      Fine with me, since I keep insurance and don't want uninsured drivers (who cannot compensate me for any damage they do) on the roads.

      I'm not sure how insurance works in the US, but here in the UK we've had systems like this for several years now. And I can tell you it's a total pain in the ass. There's supposedly a complete database which states whether any particular car has insurance or not. This is bullshit. The problem is this: insurance attaches to the driver, not the vehicle. I, for instance, have insurance to drive "any vehicle with the owner's permission". I have confirmed with my insurance company that this does not require the owner to have their own insurance on the vehicle. Yet, I am routinely stopped by the police for driving without insurance when I do this.

    132. Re:It's misnamed by julesh · · Score: 1

      What if the government spent billions hiring enough police that they could call the insurance companies manually for each car that drove past? Would that be suitable?

      Why would anyone think that would work, even if the scale was feasible? Why do you expect insurance companies to be in a position to definitively state whether or not a car is insured without knowing the identity of the driver?

      The system has a basic flaw. It cannot work.

    133. Re:It's misnamed by julesh · · Score: 1

      However, assuming that the system looks for the plate in a specific location on a car, you could always take it off and put it in your back window or something to throw it off...

      Having written ANPR software myself (automatic entry to secure parking areas) I can tell you that this is not how they find the plate. They scan the entire frame for areas of the approximate correct size that contain lines that mathematically resemble text, and run those areas through an OCR system. This generates false positives that are then weeded out by comparison with a database (in the case I was developing for) or human operator (in this case).

      Moving your plates will not work. Direction sensitive filters will not work, because the camera is probably mounted so as to get a fairly low-angled view in order to reduce distortion of the text on the plate. One trick that has been known to work is an LCD film that obscures sections of the plate, varying which section is obscured at high frequency. This is not detectable by eye or regular photograph, but to a CCD it produces an incomplete image of the plate that cannot be automatically processed.

    134. Re:It's misnamed by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

      "red light cameras... are the cash cows of the local police departments"

      Actually, I read somewhere that a city in Texas (Austin, or maybe Dallas) decided to remove their red light cameras because they were working too well as a deterrent to red light runners. The city was losing revenue because people weren't running enough red lights and having to pay the fines. So they took the cameras down. I guess traffic laws aren't about safety, but revenue. BTW, sorry I can't source this.

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    135. Re:It's misnamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the "Mobile Revenue Generator"?

      In the "day in the life" mentioned in the article, we have one guy, costing the tax payers $200 a day after wages, taxes, health insurance, pension, vacation etc, and $50k worth of equipment ($25k for camera +$25k for the car)($50/day for 3 years) to get $140 extra from some taxpayer. It doesn't seem on the face of it to be cost effective.

      Where it is effective is if people know about this and it offers an incentive for them to pay their vehicle tax, i.e. registration or inspection.

      Pay your money up front or people with guns and clubs will hunt you down and make you pay more.

    136. Re:It's misnamed by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I guess traffic laws aren't about safety, but revenue.

      Traffic laws are about safety, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be abused by being turned into revenue-generators instead.

      To be more precise, traffic laws are about allowing drivers to predict what the other people will do well in advance, which in turn allows humans to drive at reasonable speeds. Our reflexes aren't fast enough, nor are cars maneuverable enough, to simply react to what others actually do; analyzing the situation, deciding what to do, and then doing it can easily take several seconds, especially if you weren't expecting the situation.

      Anyway, to get back on topic, this kind of system would be excellent in the hands of trustworthy authority, for the exact job described, as well as catching people who have lost their license for whatever reason and still drive; however, authority being less than trustworthy, it will almost certainly be turned into yet another tool to keep track of everyone, everywhere, everywhen. Yet another power-up for the Lidless Eye...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    137. Re:It's misnamed by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      Our concept of having no right to privacy in public was precluded by a supposition that it wasn't possible to spy on everyone everywhere all the time, either. Before, everyone had equal power to see everyone else in public. The balance of power has shifted away from the public, so it's probably time to re-visit the issue of privacy in public.

    138. Re:It's misnamed by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Ianal but I don't see how that applies as the insurance I have covers my vehicle when others operate it, and it also covers me when operating another vehicle irregardless of whether that other vehicle as an insurance policy covering it. When I operate that otherwise uninsured vehicle, it is insured.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    139. Re:It's misnamed by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So the problem is with your police force, and not their technology. Fix the fucking police, then. This stops being a problem with decent cops who are accountable for their actions. It sounds like you live in Mos Eisley.

  2. Been Discussed Before by gbulmash · · Score: 1

    Almost a year to the day ago, Slashdot ran a story on license plate scanning.

    1. Re:Been Discussed Before by digid · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Thank you pointing this o

    2. Re:Been Discussed Before by digid · · Score: 1

      Thank you pointing this out. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

  3. huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The article doesn't mention what happens to the data on legal plates. Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?

    Sounds scary!
    But is it cool if I do it?

    1. Re:huh. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that they have the computer storage at their disposal to store that amount of data, or if they did they'd waste it storing license plates number and time-location data?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  4. The UK says by sa1lnr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Welcome to the party. We've been here a while and are sure you will get into the swing of it. ;)

  5. Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real mission creep isn't these cameras. It is the license plates themselves. They were initially designed only as proof that an owner of the vehicle paid the registration licensing fee, not as a mobile vehicle identification number. It is only logical that once the license plates were no longer used for strictly licensing purposes that things like this would occur.

    License plates should never have been designed. Their only purpose was to be a loophole for "unreasonable searches" since they are in public view. There is about as much justification to putting a license plate on a car as there is to putting one on your house to verify that you have paid your property taxes.

    1. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      putting one on your house to verify that you have paid your property taxes

      Don't give them ideas.

    2. Re:Poor analysis by Pennidren · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You ever run someone down with your house?

    3. Re:Poor analysis by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like your social security number was never meant to be used outside of the social security system. Let's be honest here. A lot of us write software, and not just exclusive to that group, we have all experienced this phenomenon:

      Just about every project grows well beyond it's initial purpose.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Poor analysis by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have a problem related to this.

      I lived in PA until recently. Once I, oh the horrors, changed insurance companies... You know what the knuckleheads at PennDOT did? They sent me a letter telling me that my insurance had lapsed, and demanding that I send them proof of insurance or face castration (or maybe it was just a fine).

      I looked into it, and found out that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in PA who changes their insurance gets this letter. Why? The jackasses in Harrisburg passed a law that demanded the insurance companies notify the government when someone drops insurance, but did not write into the law that they need to notify the government when someone BUYS coverage. I mean, holy shit... only politicians can be so dense. I wrote a letter much more politely phrased than this post and got the expected blow-off from my state representatives.

      So if PA ever adopts this policy of scanning for dropped insurance, they will end up pulling over anyone who has recently SWITCHED insurance and is unlucky enough to be in view of a trooper. Groovy, what a country.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Poor analysis by darjen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You almost have it. It's not that license plates should never have been designed. It's that the state never should be granted the coercive monopoly power of vehicle registration. Forced state license registration is purely for revenue purposes.

    6. Re:Poor analysis by bezza · · Score: 2, Funny

      They threatened to cut of your balls because you didn't pay your insurance?

      Or maybe you meant incarceration?

      --
      WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
    7. Re:Poor analysis by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      that's kind of the point though.

      License plates say you payed your registration fees, also known as an ad valorem tax on your car.

      This goes to the government for things like road construction, etc, etc..

      The inclusion of unique numerical identifiers should never have happened, though. All you need is a decal with the same anti-counterfeiting measures used on US currency.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    8. Re:Poor analysis by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Steven Wright mentioned accidentally putting his car key in the door to his apartment.
      Turned the key.
      Whole building started up.
      So he drove it around for a while.
      Cop pulled him over, asked "Where do you live?"
      He said "Right here".

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    9. Re:Poor analysis by maxume · · Score: 1

      For instance, Earth was originally intended to be a cosmic beverage warmer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a van down by the river, you insensitive clod! Of course I've run people down with my house. Why do you think I live by the river?

    11. Re:Poor analysis by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      OK, so what we need is a shiny new anti-project specifically targeting scope creep in other projects.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    12. Re:Poor analysis by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Hey, man: if she ain't broke, fix 'er 'til she's crippled.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    13. Re:Poor analysis by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Before we paint the state as pure evil, consider that, lacking someone coordinating road building and maintenance, we'd all have to drive tanks and have more ridiculous snarls than already in evidence.
      The task of thinking about roads has to fall to someone, and we all need to chip in somehow to fund them.
      Yes, the occasional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston%2C_Massachusetts) happens. Cost of doing business.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re:Poor analysis by interiot · · Score: 2, Informative

      If license plate numbers didn't exist, you'd have WAAAY more people running from the cops.

      The absolute first thing a police officer does when they decide to pull you over is to take your license plate. THEN they turn their lightbar on. If you try to run after they take your license plate number, you're an idiot, because an "evading a police officer" charge will show up on your record, possibly including an arrest warrant, etc.

      However, if you run before they get your number (usually by turning into a residential area... sadly, I know a guy who likes to do this), then all they have to go on is a vehicle of make X and color Y. If they were going to pull you over for a more minor infraction, it often isn't worth it for them to spend more than 10-15 minutes looking for you.

    15. Re:Poor analysis by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      i'd venture then that earth is finally starting to do its job, what with global warming and all. i mean how many ice ages did it have? how do you keep your drink warm during one of those?

    16. Re:Poor analysis by plasmacutter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't have a problem with people running from the cops.

      My right to privacy should not be eroded because they want their jobs made easier.

      Traffic cops especially, who are basically paid "raiders" for the insurance companies, commanded with the task of finding excuses to raise your rates.

      I love how cops can take the time to pull me over for a headlight I didn't notice was out, but it's been 10 years and they still haven't found the guy who stole 2000 dollars in cd's from my car.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    17. Re:Poor analysis by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      That would be great. I just thought of something else that could also be used for...

    18. Re:Poor analysis by mkiwi · · Score: 4, Funny

      You ever run someone down with your house?

      He's from Arkansas.

    19. Re:Poor analysis by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      If you say [ ], the entire intertubes will implode, so please choose your words carefully.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    20. Re:Poor analysis by darjen · · Score: 1

      I would have to disagree. The state barely (if at all) does an adequate job of maintaining roads. My recent blog post describes more of how I feel about it:

      http://straightcleveland.blogspot.com/2008/07/but-who-will-build-roads.html

    21. Re:Poor analysis by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Fixing all of Ohio's bridges could cost more than $4 billion, according to a national study. It's a bill the state says it can't foot alone without additional investment from the federal government.

      So put up toll lanes. I can somewhat understand that the interstate system, by definition, exceeds the funding scope of the state's residents. But if I want to drive through Maryland, and they set up a toll, I'm either paying it or not driving there.
      You might fine this interesting:
      http://www.virginiahotlanes.com/

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    22. Re:Poor analysis by jamesh · · Score: 1

      License plates should never have been designed. Their only purpose was to be a loophole for "unreasonable searches" since they are in public view.

      Why is everyone so petrified of being accountable for their actions these days?

      I'd love to see a slashdot poll that had two groups to choose from... the groups would contain:

      I value my privacy:
      . more than life itself
      . highly
      . moderately
      . my what?
      . not at all. I regularly flash my boobs to CowboyNeal on webcams.

      and

      My age is:
      . under 12
      . 12 to 15
      . 16 to 18
      . ... etc ...
      . Get off my lawn!

      I've always imagined that the majority of people nearer the 'Get off my lawn!' end of the latter poll would be nearer the 'more than life itself' end of the former...

      Anyway, I think the last thing you want to do with drivers is to make them think that they are anonymous. That would be a recipe for disaster!

    23. Re:Poor analysis by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      There's 8 other planets, strategically placed at appropriate distances to the sun, with varying solid and liquid cores to suit all beverages during solar and planetary seasons.

    24. Re:Poor analysis by darjen · · Score: 1

      Toll roads could easily be part of a voluntary (non government) solution.

    25. Re:Poor analysis by socsoc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plates may have been for proof of registration, but I'd gather the tags are more for that... anyway I hate to break it to you, but your house has an publicly identifiable number on it too, most likely on the front in 5 inch tall numbers.

      One huge difference is that you can't drive your house away from the scene of a crime.

    26. Re:Poor analysis by novakyu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If license plate numbers didn't exist, you'd have WAAAY more people running from the cops.

      You know, I had an idea. If we legally require that an RFID tag be implanted on every adult's hand (if you don't like electronics, simple barcode may suffice as well), then we will make law enforcement much easier and more effective. Now all a cop needs to do is scan your RFID tag from a distance, and when they tell you to stop, you stop.

      If you try to run after they take your RFID code, you are an idiot because "evading a police officer" charge will show up on your record, possibly including an arrest warrant, etc.

      So, this sounds like a great idea to make the society safe from all those people running from the law, no? After all, if it works with vehicles, why not with people?

    27. Re:Poor analysis by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I think the last thing you want to do with drivers is to make them think that they are anonymous. That would be a recipe for disaster!

      When you walk around the street, you are completely anonymous (if you'd like, you can wear hats and sun glasses---those don't really arouse suspicions), and yet, I don't see a disaster happening.

      Sure, some people get mugged every now and then (and some cars do get hijacked as well), but you don't see people punching each other at every given chance, or pushing other people over so that they can get to their destination faster.

      The truth is, most people, at least in person, are nice. Anonymous or not, most of them won't be a jackass without cause. People who hit and run will hit and run even with their license plate in full view, but I'd hope that most people, after hitting someone/something, will stop to clean up their mess even if they are anonymous to passers-by. (If that's not true, I hope a nuclear war would happen right now to cleanse the earth of these miserable creatures.)

      On the Internet, where it's easy to get an audience and where there are no real (perceived) consequences, it's a different situation, of course. But in real life, where there isn't a huge audience and the consequences of one's actions are quite clear, anonymity is not a recipe for disaster.

    28. Re:Poor analysis by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Houses are a bit more difficult to steal.

    29. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hit some old lady in bad storm once. I got a nice pair of shoes out of it though.

    30. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, did I ever misread the words "proof of insurance or face castration"... I mean, regular castration is bad enough, but face castration? Now that's a bit extreme....

    31. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking Alabama.

      Everyone in Arkansas lives in a cabin.

    32. Re:Poor analysis by jamesh · · Score: 1

      When you walk around the street, you are completely anonymous (if you'd like, you can wear hats and sun glasses---those don't really arouse suspicions), and yet, I don't see a disaster happening.

      You don't seriously believe that that's the same thing do you?

      Disney produced a cartoon decades ago about how people change when they get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, and apart from a bit of exaggeration, it was right on the mark.

      Someone crashed into my Aunt's car which was parked on the street in front of her house. By the time she got outside to see what the noise was, the other car was far enough away that she couldn't see the number plate. The guy did actually come back about 10 minutes later, but only because he saw some kids jot down the number plate further up the road.

      Some friends had a car they had borrowed from their parents written off in a similar way in the middle of the night. The car that did it was nowhere to be found.

      My mum was out with friends and when they came back to get their cars one was about half as wide as it was when she left. The car that did it was long gone.

      I could go on... I will.

      One of our work cars was scraped up the side while parked in a shopping center. The car that did it was, again, not there, and the driver hadn't made any effort to leave a note or something.

      I have personally witnessed on more than one occasion a car crashing into another car in a supermarket and then driving off without the driver stopping to take responsibility for their actions.

      I was driving home a few months ago and a car overtook me over a rise. There was a car coming the other way and that car was forced off the road to avoid the collision, as was I to try and make room. The driver of the car that overtook me didn't stop to make sure everyone was okay.

      Now I'm sure that someone can cite an equal number of cases where the driver of the car that did the crashing did stick around, but have a think about that ratio as compared to a person accidentally walking into another person, knocking them over, and stopping/not stopping to help them up.

      People behave differently once they get behind the wheel of a car.

    33. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the problem noted above, but think it may not have been due to oversight. Many fewer people probably drop insurance than purchase and renew insurance. Rather than have the insurance companies have to make many, many reports to the state, the state required that insurance companies only report the fewer number of dropped policies and that the respective individual drivers then report their new policies (2 x small number big number)

    34. Re:Poor analysis by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Humans have faces and can't run very fast. Seeing someone's face in a car can be difficult and the car can easily become an anonymous block of metal moving at 150 km/h. Seeing a red car run someone over will not produce a useful description of the perpetrator (unless there's some really unique paint or whatever on the car) but seeing someone shoot another person will often end with a description of his face. Cars are dangerous (pobably one of the biggest dangers in any industrial nation) and have no unique identifiers beyond their license plate. You simply need identifiers on dangerous things like that, especially when they can blend into a crowd and move at very high speeds.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    35. Re:Poor analysis by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      However, if you run before they get your number (usually by turning into a residential area... sadly, I know a guy who likes to do this)

      Wow, what an awesome disguise! Where did your friend get the costume?

    36. Re:Poor analysis by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Have you told your new insurance company that you got into trouble by placing your business with them.

      They might have a stronger motive to rectify the situation.

    37. Re:Poor analysis by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, I moved out of PA instead :)

      Now I live in the people's republic of New York, where having a car is for the rich and famous.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re:Poor analysis by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I don't follow? How could the total number of people dropping insurance be lower than the number of the subset who then renew with another company?

      I think you are right that they were trying to save cash, but the presumption of guilt and burden of proof laying with the innocent party rub me the wrong way. Besides, how much can they be saving when they'd have to send out a letter to every single person and then manually handle each response vs. setting up a database for the insurance companies to keep up with. Sure, there would be errors in the database, but I'd wager that the manpower would be lower overall.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    39. Re:Poor analysis by Big+Hairy+Goofy+Guy · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Since I've grown up with license plates being a fact of life, I've never thought about the privacy opportunities that would be possible if there were no license plates. Instead, I've wondered why there hasn't been a push to put RFID tags in license plates.

      My reasoning is that since the plates are already publicly displayed, instead of police forces spending bongo bucks on cameras and OCR software, we could put the RFID tag in the plate and use cheap reading technology to acquire the license number.

      I recognize that this is a(nother) scope creep: automating the reading/tracking of license plates means all sorts of interesting applications would be possible. I live in England, and we have speed cameras (and in some places, average speed cameras). I live in London, where the congestion charge and "low emission zone" fees are currently in force. If vehicle RFID readers were widely deployed, there could be a more flexible charging of those use fees (or taxes?).

      I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. I am very uncomfortable with giving law enforcement more data than is available to defendants. I have a deep suspicion that police officers and (in the US) district attorneys care much more about convictions than justice. I also have deep suspicions that uniform collection of (e.g.) speeding cars does not lead to uniform (i.e. equal) enforcement. I do not think it is a good idea for the police/DA to have complete records of every speeding car, and then have them pick and choose who will receive a ticket. I also think it is unethical for the police/DA to pick someone up of suspicion of a crime (say disturbing the peace) and then run their plates through the database and discover they were speeding 3 days ago, and charge them for speeding. I worry about the perception that if you go to a political demonstration, you'll get "the book" thrown at you.

      I was very much in favor of "speed cameras" because I thought it would result in even enforcement. I know now that it does not. For some reason the system of speed cameras still allows for variable enforcement, and so gives leverage to the police/DA to prosecute non-crimes.

      Perhaps I am just too suspicious of our boys and girls in blue.

    40. Re:Poor analysis by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sounds like Urbanus (a comedian from Vlaanderen), it was so misty he only found out on the freeway doing 100 KM/h that he had taken his bike instead of his car.

    41. Re:Poor analysis by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      How do you run in a disguise like that?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    42. Re:Poor analysis by Warhawke · · Score: 0

      Like the internet? Someone should go back in time and stop Al Gore from inventing it. We all know how evil it is.

    43. Re:Poor analysis by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, I meant castration. I'm a big fan of unix.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    44. Re:Poor analysis by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How about:
      Having to wear a number on your back when you go for a walk?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    45. Re:Poor analysis by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha, no you wouldn't.
      The license doesn't stop people from running from the cops, decency and common sense does.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    46. Re:Poor analysis by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      Florida is even better. If your insurance (on the vehicle in Florida, not the driver) lapses, they immediately suspend not your registration for the affected vehicle, but your driver's license! Have fun getting insurance now that you've recently had a suspended license. A friend had this happen in the same situation as far as changing insurance providers. He claimed there was no way to fix it...maybe he waited to long to try to get out of it, or maybe they're just jerks like that. I wouldn't bet against the latter.

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    47. Re:Poor analysis by budgenator · · Score: 1

      This is all temporary, the states are losing boatloads of fuel taxes so they'll be switching over to a usage taxation system and that will entail having vehicle enabled with mesh networking. The next step will be the steering wheel reads the RFID chip in your hand and tells the cops whose driving as well. If you've been naughty, Onstar will lock you seat belt and shut off your engine when it's convenient for the officers to pick you up.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    48. Re:Poor analysis by budgenator · · Score: 1

      in National Guard civil disturbance training they stress grabbing a news crew and make sure they get plenty of things to film because stripping anonymity is the quickest way to defuse a potential riot without getting people hurt or arrested.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    49. Re:Poor analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or according to Killer Beaz the cop said...

      "You got a porch light out"

    50. Re:Poor analysis by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      How do you run in a disguise like that?

      Good point. Not to mention the people trying to move in.

    51. Re:Poor analysis by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Well, luckily, none of them can get mortgages right now.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  6. Efficiency. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'I just think it makes us a lot more effective and a lot more efficient in how our time is being used,' [a senior detective] said.

    Mindless seeking towards some arbitrary level of "efficiency" (which is never achieved, requiring yet more investment in equipment and technology and more loss of civil liberties) should not be the primary function of law enforcement.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Efficiency. by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      your post is impeding the efficiency of the policing system, please report to your local police education centre citizen.

    2. Re:Efficiency. by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Boy, I sure am glad that those detectives won't be wasting their time tracking down those with lapsed insurance and emissions tests so that they can instead be freed up to work on important things instead.

      Oh wait, they wouldn't have done it in the first place and now it's just made a nearly unnecessary job a lot easier to generate revenue for the city and headaches for people who are already short on cash for various real-world reasons. Awesome.

      Yay, America is safe from those horrendous evils and now officially sucks as bad as 1956 Russia.

    3. Re:Efficiency. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Mindless seeking towards some arbitrary level of "efficiency" (which is never achieved, requiring yet more investment in equipment and technology and more loss of civil liberties) should not be the primary function of law enforcement.

      At what level does improved efficiency suddenly result in a loss of civil liberties?

      I would argue (and I think W. Edwards Deming would have agreed) that it's everyone's job to improve efficiency.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:Efficiency. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You've never been hit by someone without insurance. Guess what, you have to pay. Sucks, doesn't it. Particularly when you've got no legal recourse against them, because they're illegals. Driving is not a right (read your constitution again; you have the right to assembly, but not the right to drive). If we've got a way to get the cons off the road, I say do it. If you get picked up for your unpaid parking tickets, well, sucks to be you.

      Now, mind you, I see no justification, at all, for the government recording what plate was seen where. Perhaps we should start a petition to keep the government from collecting that data unless there's a search warrant.

    5. Re:Efficiency. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      You are apparently not a worshipper of the Metrics God.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    6. Re:Efficiency. by mixmatch · · Score: 1

      Driving is not a right (read your constitution again; you have the right to assembly, but not the right to drive)

      Just because its not specifically mentioned in the constitution does NOT mean it is not a right:

      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      I also have the right to not have the federal government making a bunch of stupid laws that infringe upon the states:

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      And what has that gotten me?

      Some federal crimes include kidnapping, tax evasion, counterfeiting, as well as damaging or destoying mailboxes, art theft, arson, assault, immigration offences and more recently, assassinating the President, though it wasn't deemed a federal crime until after President John F. Kennedy's death.

    7. Re:Efficiency. by mixmatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Certainly, but what is more efficient, investing $25k on a device, plus man hours, to catch people with minor infractions and go through all the paperwork involved in forcing compliance, or managing those cases in the traditional manner (probably a letter to the residence of the owner), and focusing on other, perhaps more pertinent issues? I would argue that the OP is not saying that improved efficiency is bad, but rather that "Mindless" attempts that involve the assumption that the more technological solution is the more efficient one are counterproductive.

    8. Re:Efficiency. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Just because its not specifically mentioned in the constitution does NOT mean it is not a right

      Fair enough. What about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Most people tend to forget that there is a, "as long as it does not interfere with others ability to enjoy the same" condition.

      We tend to take driving for granted. It's simply amazing how many people out there do not understand physics. Driving a car means that you are controlling a multi ton hunk of glass, metal, and volatile chemicals at high speeds. Higher speeds than anything else has achieved on this planet normally. Think about that for a second. How many objects are really moving around with that much force before the invention of the automobile? Not many. Go back at least a thousand years and I will bet the only equivalent was the ancient dinosaurs and large mammals running. Out of all those objects, how many were influenced by a human being? How many objects were regularly in close contact with one another?

      Not enough people actually respect that.

      So maybe driving is a special condition that really does require oversight by the public on the public. I would feel safer knowing that you have to be licensed and that your basic ability to drive a car was verified by another human being.

      So although I wholeheartedly agree with you that the constitution should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people (an argument of why the Bill of Rights should not exist BTW), I don't feel licensing drivers is a good example of it.

    9. Re:Efficiency. by iksbob · · Score: 1

      Hey, look on the bright side: If officers are using their time more efficiently, we'll need fewer of them to get the job done, right?
      Yeah, right.

    10. Re:Efficiency. by Randall311 · · Score: 1

      Hey if they're not pulling me over for speeding because they're busy pulling Mr. X over for lack of insurance then I'm all for it.

    11. Re:Efficiency. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The laws are already on the books. If they're unjust, then the loss of liberties has already occurred. It doesn't matter how inefficiently they are enforced. In fact, inefficiency gives corrupt enforcers power, for they can channel their energies toward just about whomever they please.

      If enforcement becomes more effective, that does not represent a loss of liberty for if the laws are just, perfect enforcement is, of course, the goal.

      Further, it is insideous: poor enforcement leads to insufficient outrage to overturn the law. Witness all the highways with obviously too-low limits. Very few complaints, though, because the speed limit effectively becomes a "ticket lottery." A game that everyone tries to lose.

      Liberty does not mean, "the ability to get away with stuff." People sometimes "getting away with stuff" is just the price that we might have to pay to keep our liberty.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Efficiency. by mixmatch · · Score: 1

      My comments were not against the regulation of driving. What irritated me was the poster that essentially said that since the US Constitution does not enumerate a right to drive, you do not have that right, which is contradictory to the 9th amendment. He should read his constitution again. You have the right to do anything (regardless of whether it's enumerated in the Constitution) not prohibited by the laws governing people in your state and/or federal district.

    13. Re:Efficiency. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      since the US Constitution does not enumerate a right to drive, you do not have that right, which is contradictory to the 9th amendment. He should read his constitution again. You have the right to do anything (regardless of whether it's enumerated in the Constitution) not prohibited by the laws governing people in your state and/or federal district.

      The right to be safe from incompetent drivers trumps the "right to drive" any day.

      Oh, wait. There is no "right to drive"; it's a ******PRIVILEGE****** you EARN by passing a competency exam, and that you KEEP by driving properly.

    14. Re:Efficiency. by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Boy, I sure am glad that those detectives won't be wasting their time tracking down those with lapsed insurance and emissions tests so that they
      > can instead be freed up to work on important things instead.

      But I thought there was no expectation of privacy in public? That's what people say when someone compains about, say, an investigative reporter/group keeping an eye on someone dodgy, isn't it? What's the difference here? This would come in handy tracking down hit and run drivers, wouldn't it, or stolen cars? I know people who've suffered from both. What, it's not gentlemanly?

    15. Re:Efficiency. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      managing those cases in the traditional manner (probably a letter to the residence of the owner)

      And what happens to all those vehicles that don't have insurance or valid registration, and also the new owner hasn't updated the vehicles owners details with the state? Its more prevelent than you think.

    16. Re:Efficiency. by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "sucks as bad as 1956 Russia"

      You can still vote or campaign for someone who seeks to prevent this erosion of civil liberties. If that fails, you can still run for city and state positions based on limiting such erosion.

      Saying this is "as bad as 1956 Russia" may sound clever, but excuses you and your fellow citizens from doing something against it based on the flawed assumption that, because '56 Russians couldn't you too can't.

      Would you please take back your country? I like to visit it every now and then and would be very happy if it didn't turn into something that confuses people into including Franz Kafka among your Founding Fathers.

    17. Re:Efficiency. by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      The erosion of civil liberties may come not from the increased efficiency collecting the data but how it is handled and preserved.

      If someone is caught using his or her car without doing what the law written by the representatives you helped (frequently through inaction) elect, I would demand the data is anonymized after the person pays the fine and returns the car into compliance. It could be kept for statistical analysis purpose if anonymized enough.

      Maybe the problem is not an efficient and effective police force, but that creepy DHS thing that demand more and more data that can be used in efficient ways against the increasingly broad group called "terrorists" (that now seem to even include mentally deranged British trespassers in one of its many shades of grey). Maybe even the DHS is not the problem, but the increasingly broad definition of "terrorist".

      Your country survived a couple witch hunts (one against witches, other against communists) but you never before had these wonderful information processing machines that makes hunting witches all so more efficient.

    18. Re:Efficiency. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Bingo. I'm glad someone else grasps this.

      If, tomorrow, every single person was charged and convicted of every single crime they'd ever committed...we'd live in a free country by Friday. You can't fine the entire driving population of the country tens of thousands of dollar each. You can't arrest 20% of the population for drug use. (And if the RIAA is right that ripping a CD to computer is illegal...)

      Letting the police enforce the law to whatever level they want is absurd. It just means the police enforce the law against whoever they want. I'm all for introducing automated means into the police's work, because then they have to actually account for who they gave tickets to and who they didn't.

      A few months ago I pulled over for 'weaving'. 'Weaving', which is defined as your tires touching either the white lines or the yellow lines, is something that every single person does every time they drive anywhere. Period. There are intersections that you do it every time at. There are turnoffs where, to take them without 'weaving', you'd have to fully stop and execute a perfect right turn, because the dashed turn area starts exactly at the road. (Who here even notices the dashed breaks in the yellow and white lines when they turn, much less aims between them?) No one can drive without 'weaving'.

      They pulled me over because they wanted to look in my car. I have long hair, I have a beard and mustache, I have bumper stickers on my car saying 'Support our troops, bring them home' and 'If they can torture terrorists, they can torture you', and the car has a partially bashed-in front and is somewhat dirty, and I was driving around in the middle of the day on a route that drugs take from here to Atlanta. Who knows what triggered their 'He might be running drugs' or whatever made them decide to pull me over?

      They actually got really disinterested after I got out of my car wearing a theatre t-shirt and had a laptop in the back. I guess meth-heads don't volunteer to do tech for musicals or have laptops, and they correctly reclassified me as 'nerd' and didn't bother with more than looking in the windows.

      Oddly enough, if they actually wanted to cite me for an actual real offense, my left front turn signal is missing the cover and hence illegally flashes white instead of amber. They looked right at my frontend, which is bashed in and has a plexiglass cover over the headlight, and an obviously uncovered turn signal, and didn't even comment. (Legally, though, I'm not sure they can make you demonstrate that your car lights work.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:Efficiency. by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Don't you realise the fines that they generate from catching people with lapsed insurance and emissions tests pay for the donuts that fuel the cops that are working on the important things!

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    20. Re:Efficiency. by hex-2e8 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of "Mindless". I Believe the priority should be in finding smart competent cops. Who can use instinct and experience to spot "Real" Criminals , Instead of intentionally dumb cops who see the blinking red light for a plate and say "GET 'EM" -Rob

  7. Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    How do I just look up a license plate number, without the fancy gizmos? Just an app or webpage that I can query with the plate number. Or the VIN. To get the owner's name, and hopefully their address.

    I'm tired of people driving like murderers, especially when I'm on my motorcycle. I usually get up close to them and snap their picture, and their plate. Which calms me down a little, especially when they start covering their face. (No, I don't care if that endangers them, and I only do it when I am fully safe to do it.) But if I could go home and look up their identity, I could drop by with a note reminding them that they can't just get away with it.

    Someday I'd love to send a video of these jerks driving recklessly direct to the cops, and get a call back from them with me bearing witness to the report. Then they can round up that jerk, and I can narrate the video to the judge, and really help get these homicidal drivers off the road.

    But in the meantime, how do I just look up their plate# or VIN?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      You most likely can't. But the police can. They have access to that sort of data. Mostly they have databases containing the license plates of known stolen cars, etc. Since many police cars now have laptop computers in them it's an easy enough process for a police department to upload a database of known stolen car license plates to each officers car, then let the cameras do their thing. As the cop is driving down a street the laptop just pops up an alert if he passes a car with the plate.

    2. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      For one, you need to get some help, and for two, www.publicdata.com.

    3. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by mfnickster · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm tired of people driving like murderers

      The scary thing about murderers, is they drive just like you and me!

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    4. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I sure hope your vigilante attitude doesn't get me killed. Maybe I'll look up your plate when you're enacting your validated revenge and enact my own.

    5. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do I just look up a license plate number, without the fancy gizmos? Just an app or webpage that I can query with the plate number. Or the VIN. To get the owner's name, and hopefully their address.

      I'm tired of people driving like murderers, especially when I'm on my motorcycle. I usually get up close to them and snap their picture, and their plate. Which calms me down a little, especially when they start covering their face. (No, I don't care if that endangers them, and I only do it when I am fully safe to do it.) But if I could go home and look up their identity, I could drop by with a note reminding them that they can't just get away with it.

      Someday I'd love to send a video of these jerks driving recklessly direct to the cops, and get a call back from them with me bearing witness to the report. Then they can round up that jerk, and I can narrate the video to the judge, and really help get these homicidal drivers off the road.

      But in the meantime, how do I just look up their plate# or VIN?

      And i'm tired of motorcyclists thinking they own the road.

      Recently I was visiting my family in detroit and was rented a grand prix.

      So i'm driving down telegraph, check behind me, and change lanes.

      Suddenly, this motorcyclist is hitting my window.. he was hugging my blind spot (you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"), which is particularly large on the model i was driving.

      I tell him where to stick it, and he speeds off. Over the next 5 minutes, i watch him hug the blind spots of 3 more vehicles before I finally reached my turn.

      If so many people are near-missing you, maybe you're that guy!
      do you by chance drive a black crotch rocket in the detroit area?
      Accidents are a two-way affair.

      By the way, snapping people's pictures while at speed on a public road is a good way to get yourself, the other driver, and innocent third parties killed. Remember princess Dai?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    6. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Pretty limited search, especially for license plates. But thanks for the help :).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I almost ran someone like you over the other day. I was merging across lanes to get to the fast lane, and I didn't see him. It's not that I wasn't looking, but motorcycles are so small, and he was in my blind spot. I felt bad until he got up next to my window and started yelling something at me. What a jerk! He must have though I did it on purpose. I just shrugged my shoulders at him.

      You must understand that a motorcycle is just not as safe as a full-sized car.

    8. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you're driving a van, you can check your "blind" spots by turning your head. Certainly worked when I've driven a Grand Prix, although it was a while ago and maybe you had a newer model with extra large posts or something. But if you're just checking your mirrors and not moving your head, you have only yourself to blame.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    9. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      If you have blind spots in a modern car, your mirrors are not positioned properly

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    10. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Over the next 5 minutes, i watch him hug the blind spots of 3 more vehicles before I finally reached my turn.

      That's not a motorcyclist - that's an organ donor waiting to happen.

      Please don't judge the rest of us on two wheels by his actions.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    11. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's only a blind spot if you don't look. Use your head... And neck.

    12. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by loraksus · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you have blind spots in a modern car, your mirrors are not positioned properly

      Or you're driving a claustrophobic, poorly designed, small windowed piece of shit like a Dodge Caliber.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    13. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in the southeast. Do you think i'm stupid enough to trust just my mirrors when changing lanes?

      I actually turned and looked, with my own eyeballs, and nothing was there.

      Every car has a blind spot, but american cars lately have been getting really bad about it, and motorcycles are considerably smaller than most vehicles.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    14. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by drawfour · · Score: 1

      No, motorcyclists do not think people try to run them off the road on purpose. We just know that assholes like you who think the excuse "he was in my blind spot" is a legitimate reason for almost running someone off the road are, well, assholes. There is no such thing as a blind spot, on any vehicle. If there is a blind spot that cannot be resolved by repositioning the mirrors, or physically turning your head, then you do not have the correct mirrors for the vehicle you are driving.

    15. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i'm just saying those of us on 4 wheels are driving flawed machines.

      Blind spots are serious business. I always check it, wait 3 more seconds, and check it again.

      35% of the time, someone was there.

      It's very important not to hang near the rear quarter panels for an extended period of time. move up toward the doors, or back behind the vehicle by about 7 feet.

      I always do the same.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    16. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      the latest grand prix has utterly massive posts in the rear of the car.. form over function. (think normal rear passenger windows, but with a huge trangle painted black across the bottom-rear quadrant)

      It was a rental though, so it's not as if I had much of a choice.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    17. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by nabsltd · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is impossible to place your mirrors in such a way that a motorcycle is never in a blind spot.

      This is because they can accelerate so quickly that if you have your mirrors placed to eliminate the blind spot immediately to the left of your vehicle, your mirror shows you too much of the lane immediately to your left, and not enough of the lane to the left of that one.

      This moves the blind spot to slightly farther back in the lane immediately to your left, along with a largish one in the next lane over. For cars, this isn't a big deal, as either part of them will be outside the blind spot, or they won't be able to accelerate quickly enough to cause a problem if you move left a lane.

    18. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Obviously there will be a huge market for car cameras, just as for GPS units.
      What will be interesting is when you can drive along and use voice commands to upload clips of jackass drivers to YouTube in near real-time.
      As we slide into Idiocracy, you'll have a "Traffic Follies" show where you can shame the biggest 'tards of the day, nestled in between Bob Violence and $WEEKday Night Firefight.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    19. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      I doubt they'd do it like that, more likely is to have the police car query the central db on every lookup -- This way you can correlate police car location and ID number and let the central db keep track of everyones license plate + last seen location and even the police wouldn't know its going on.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    20. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      As we slide into Idiocracy, you'll have a "Traffic Follies" show where you can shame the biggest 'tards of the day, nestled in between Bob Violence and $WEEKday Night Firefight.

      tru. tv (TM)

      "world's worst drivers"
      "speeders"
      "most shocking"

      (and the list goes on)

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    21. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by spvo · · Score: 1

      You think the motorcyclists thinks they own the road because he was happily driving in his own lane? You're the idiot who needs to learn to check his damn blind spot. Remember, if you nearly get into an accident because you change lanes, it isn't the other persons fault for not getting out of your way.

    22. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Pontiac fails it, then. Thanks for the additional info.

      In general though I have to say that most people don't seem to check their "blind" spots, relying entirely on mirrors. So even if the car in question isn't badly designed, and even if it's the driver's fault for not looking, it's unhealthy to stay in that spot.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    23. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by 1729 · · Score: 1

      And you're wrong again about that biker being someone like me. Because when I yell at someone like you for almost running me over, and they just shrug their shoulders instead of indicating somehow that maybe they learned a lesson to be more careful next time, I don't just keep yelling. I smash off your rearview mirror, then beat it to smithereens against your car. If that doesn't sink in the right way, then I smash your window with it. Any funny moves from there, and you've got a guy wearing body armor and a helmet ripping, punching and choking you. Wearing gloves that cover fingerprints. On a motorcycle that can get away without a trace.

      How many times have you actually ripped off a rearview mirror, smashed a windshield, or choked a clueless cager?

    24. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Princess Dai ?
      You mean, the Princess of Whales ?

    25. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't drive in people's blind spots. And if you can hit the motorcyclist, they're not in your blind spot, which is behind you, unless they're passing you, in which case they're moving through your blind spot, and you should be able to see them before and after they move through it.

      And like I said, when someone almost kills me when they don't have to, I really don't care whether my taking their picture endangers them. Once they've demonstrated they don't care about my life, I don't care about theirs.

      Really, your whole post reads like a pack of lies by someone who wants to own the road in a car that's too big for you to drive safely. Next time you almost kill a biker who isn't really driving in your blind spot, it better not be me. Or I won't be just yelling at you. I'll be making a much more lasting impression.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    26. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suddenly, this motorcyclist is hitting my window.. he was hugging my blind spot (you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"), which is particularly large on the model i was driving.

      If he was knocking on your window, all you should have done was look out it to see him before you changed lanes. Sorry he pissed you off, but you failed to check for traffic in your blind spot. Stop depending on your mirrors which only look behind you. Turn your head and check.

      This doesn't excuse him from riding in the blind spot. But when you hit someone because you didn't do a head check, the law will find you at fault.

    27. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you instigate me into chasing you because you almost killed me and get yourself killed, you won't be looking up anything, except whatever the view might be from hell.

      And if you survive, you can tell it to the judge.

      I'm willing to take my chances. If you're not, just be appropriately careful on the roads, and we'll get along fine by never knowing each other.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    28. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hey're not in your blind spot, which is behind you

      I chellenge you to provide evidence for this blanket claim, for all cars, trucks, RV's and go-karts.

      I'm really sorry that you don't think your own choice of road position has any bearing on the risk of an accident.

      Personally, I avoid hanging off the rear quarter panels of cars (and similar areas on semis, etc), and I haven't had a near-miss from a lane-changer in the hyper-aggressive driving capital of the southeast I live in in about 4 years (in that time i've logged approx 100k miles).

      I'll write it off as you getting angry. Most of your posts are much more down-to-earth and open-minded than this.

      For the record, I give extra consideration to bikers and bicyclists when i can see them because i'm aware of how horrific the injuries are on those vehicles.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    29. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      don't just keep yelling. I smash off your rearview mirror, then beat it to smithereens against your car. If that doesn't sink in the right way, then I smash your window with it. Any funny moves from there, and you've got a guy wearing body armor and a helmet ripping, punching and choking you. Wearing gloves that cover fingerprints. On a motorcycle that can get away without a trace.

      maybe it's not them, it's you.

      Try that in the area where i live, and you're likely to get a gun in your face.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    30. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by kegger64 · · Score: 1

      ...I smash off your rearview mirror, then beat it to smithereens against your car. If that doesn't sink in the right way, then I smash your window with it. Any funny moves from there, and you've got a guy wearing body armor and a helmet ripping, punching and choking you. Wearing gloves that cover fingerprints...

      And I just run over you with my car... jeesh.

      --
      653899 - Another prime Slashdot UID
    31. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      More than twice. On foot, too.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    32. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I'm a little tired of those two-wheeling organ doners, too, but not because of what I see on the road (I don't drive much). Not a week goes by that I don't read about a motorcycle fatality... and most of them are single-vehical accidents.

    33. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      When I'm smashing in your window with your mirror, you're not going to have time to get your gun, one of those "funny moves", before I throttle you.

      And just because you're the one who brought the gun, doesn't mean you're the one who's going to use it.

      My neighborhood is NYC, and has been since before I learned to drive. Don't bother threatening me with guns, when I've already faced down the kind of people who like to make such threats, or act like fools just because they're carrying one.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    34. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Blind spots.

      Unless your car is too big for you to drive it. Then you shouldn't drive it.

      I know where they are. I drive a car, too, and I know where they are. I've driven all kinds of trucks, from SUVs to panel trucks to buses to everything but semis, garbage trucks or fire trucks. When I approach a driver who's almost hit me (when we've stopped at a light), I don't start out yelling. I start by just waving at them first. When they ignore me, it's obvious they saw me in the first place. I don't start yelling unless that's what it takes to make an impression. And then their further actions take it from there. When they continue to act like they're immune to consequences because they're the one inside a tough steel box, I prove them wrong.

      So they don't forget. And so I don't have to drive away shaken up, and therefore more vulnerable to the next fool. They give me a good reason to vent, which is better for both of us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    35. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can in fact check a blind spot. It's only blind to your mirrors. You are required by law to do a head check when changing lanes. His reckless driving aside, it was probably your fault you hit him.

    36. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't hesitate to put a round into one of your extremities.

      When brought to court, i'd subpoena your body armor and ask the jury how exactly i was supposed to cause enough pain to stop you without the weapon.

      "we find the defendant, not guilty based on self defense"

      especially in the hicktown bible belt.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    37. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Both diagrams on that page show areas which can easily hide a motorcycle and which, in the event of a lane change, would either overlap (hit) the vehicle or give mere inches, which would likely compel sudden actions which can wipe out a biker (i've personally seen it happen to someone unwary enough to hang off the quarter panel of a '93 deville for too long)

      vehicle size is also misleading.

      the ford i currently drive is about 30% larger than a grand prix, but has a much smaller blind spot because the cabin designers weren't incompetent.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    38. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You can't run me over when I follow you to the next stoplight and pull up next to you. Which is of course where I'll be when I'm just yelling at you first.

      You really don't know anything about driving. You should stay off the roads entirely, not just away from motorcycles.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    39. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, the blind spots, as those diagrams illustrate, are all behind the car. Only if the biker is passing you when you move into their lane are they in danger of being in your blind spot and touching your car. And if they're passing you, then only in the rarest coincidences where your trajectories and speeds are synced so closely that they move towards your car in a straight line entirely contained within the blind spot cone are they really blocked while you both move. Practically all the time, you can see them before and after they're in the blind spot as you change lanes.

      The bottom line is that you should never drive your car into a space you haven't seen is actually empty. That is achievable by looking, and taking an extra second or two while signaling and slowly starting to move whenever you can't be sure the space is empty. Which should be rare, because you should be watching all the vehicles entering your nearby space when driving.

      This is nearly always easy to do. If you can't do it due to conditions or your own skills, you shouldn't take those risks. Not when someone else's life hangs on it. Perhaps your own.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    40. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You'd be hesitating while you reached for your gun, and I'd have you with a jagged edge of broken mirror in your face, and my hand on whatever you're reaching for. And if you did manage to get off a shot, I'd surely kill you immediately. Your gun doesn't protect your windpipe from crushing. The initiative in the hands of someone with my experience is the lethal factor.

      That bible belt is going to have to take care of something a lot less useful to you when the dust settles. Besides, NYC lawyers are happy to fly to the bible belt and prove to judges that a guy who almost killed their client for no reason with their car was also guilty of pointing a gun through a window at someone who was just waving at them a few seconds later at the stoplight.

      Look, this is a theoretical argument for you. For me, it's the reality that I deal with whenever I'm on my bike. I'm not interested in some kind of fantasy faceoff in these comments. I don't even like doing it when it's real and necessary. Just be careful when you're driving. Even if you do shoot me before I kill you, you don't want to deal with that just to change lanes without looking. You don't even want to run me over if I somehow don't see you coming. Let's just watch what we're doing, and everyone will get where we're going.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    41. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by iksbob · · Score: 1

      I don't think a gun would be necessary for the 'cage' driver in your scenario... You're talking about assaulting someone who is actively in control of somewhere between 2 and 8 thousand pounds of metal, plastic and glass. If the vehicles are in motion, a little swerve would encourage any motorcyclist to move away from the driver's window. If the vehicles are stopped, turning the steering wheel hard to the right and throwing it in reverse would quickly acquaint the two-wheeled attacker with the larger vehicle's driver's side door, fender and/or tire.
      Oh, and when the cops cart you away for making terroristic threats, can I have your user number?

    42. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no neck, you insensitive clod!

    43. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suddenly, this motorcyclist is hitting my window.. he was hugging my blind spot (you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"), which is particularly large on the model i was driving.

      Maybe you've heard of the latest innovation, it's called TURNING YOUR HEAD! I learned it in driving school, and it was part of the driving exam.

      TURNING YOUR HEAD allows you to see if there is something in your blind spot before changing lanes.

      Maybe you should practice TURNING YOUR HEAD before you drive again.

      Accidents are a two-way affair.

      Not at all. Car crashes are very often the fault of only one vehicle, with driver error being the leading cause.

    44. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Get an inexpensive, small camera. (like one of those lipstick cams from a decade ago). Mount it in a spot on your car that it can see most of the action. And feed it to a short loop recording device (so there's no danger of some mistake YOU made 20 minutes earlier being on the tape. But also so that it doesn't take much space in your car)

      When you see an infraction, pop the tape, and send it into the cops. A complete record of exactly what the driver did should be enough evidence to get 'em some kind of fine.

      Such a tape is also useful in the event that you're fined for something, as you can preserve the record to defend yourself.

      But I'm not sure it's that great of a plan: I'd estimate informally that about half or maybe more than half of the reckless driving I've seen has been police in well-marked vehicles (without the lights or siren or horn or even wildly flailing arms. So..not "emergency" reckless. Just plain reckless reckless.) And I've got some serious suspicion that the other half also includes a significant fraction of police who are off-duty.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    45. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      How do I just look up a license plate number, without the fancy gizmos? Just an app or webpage that I can query with the plate number. Or the VIN. To get the owner's name, and hopefully their address.

      Do you really think it would be a good idea for a state to make license plate name and address data available to any random schmuck who happened to want it? For a project, I was given access to the Arizona Criminal Justice Information System, which has just that kind of data. One thing the training video showed was based on a real case in which a cop, seeing an attractive motorist, would look up her name and address and then show up on her doorstep after hours hoping for a 'date'. That was bad enough. Now multiply that by the number of non-cop would-be stalkers out there who'd love to do the same. For access to ACJIS, I was given a custom ID that would identify me and would be used to log whatever queries I made to the database, just to prevent exactly that kind of abuse.

    46. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The car and my bike are both stopped. I'm homicidal, not suicidal.

      Once I'm smashing your window in and grabbing your throat, control of the vehicle coverts to me, not you. I'm the one wearing armor, with the element of surprise, and already cheated death at your hands once that day.

      Just drive carefully. For both our sakes.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    47. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was driving down the highway and these six Hells Angels went roaring past. A bit further down the road I passed a pickup pulled over to the left side of the (divided) highway. A little further up, there were five Hells Angels pulled over on the right. Oops.

    48. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someday I'd love to send a video of these jerks driving recklessly direct to the cops, and get a call back from them with me bearing witness to the report. Then they can round up that jerk, and I can narrate the video to the judge, and really help get these homicidal drivers off the road.

      You videotape other people while driving a motorcycle? Your concern may be directed at the wrong problem.

    49. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really think that was the kind of help he meant.

    50. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      I've read no less than 8 posts by you, all very angry, that all say the same thing.

      There are times I've not paid enough attention, or not seen something that I should have noticed, and contributed to situations that could cause accidents. It inevitably ends with a horn honk and me feeling rather sheepish. Incidents where I'm on the receiving end of this behavior seem to run about the same way. No shouting, no destruction, no need for vigilantly justice.

      No offense, but I think you might be part of the problem, because you make it sound like this is a fairly frequent occurrence. If you're constantly being almost killed you may want to adjust your behavior accordingly. *shrug*

    51. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      This has got to be the single most retarded pissing match I've ever seen on Slashdot.

      Honestly.

      I almost felt a little bad after my other reply because, you know, maybe you just had a bad day, its an emotional subject, whatever.

      Not any more. You're just an angry, immature person. This doesn't excuse any one else driving or posting, but you've been the antagonist as far as I can tell, and I really don't see the point.

    52. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think it would be smart. But I can't help but notice that the people who run such things, for the state and for private corps (and for those who are doing both), are not smart.

      So I asked. I got one decent answer. The rest of the answers have been mostly from people who are smart enough to give me what I want, if only they were in charge of not doing so.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    53. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It is an infrequent occurrence. Even more infrequent is when the driver doesn't immediately respond with apologies when I first wave at them calmly, then politely explain what they missed, when we're stopped at the next light.

      But when they almost kill me, and then ignore or mock my initial polite waving, that makes me angry. When someone runs you down and isn't apologetic, if you're not angry, you're not really human.

      In none of my posts have I implied anything but that. If you don't relate, you shouldn't be driving. Or at least you should just read and learn, and not post something that just blames the victim.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    54. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no fucking blind spot. Learn to adjust your mirrors correctly.

      Further, I've had people nearly run me the fuck over on my motorcycle after a legal, normal lane change, a signal, and normal braking. Like locked up their brakes as I turned in to a shopping center, nearly fucking rear ended and killed me.

      I've had one wreck where a guy SITTING BESIDE ME at a stoplight pulled slightly ahead of me as we moved, waited for me to disappear in to his blindspot, then nearly took the front end off my bike forcing me to brake harshly and drop the bike. He just thought I somehow mysteriously teleported out of his view.

      I had another one where I was RIGHT NEXT TO HIM in slow rush hour traffic. Like literally sitting by his driver side door. He pulls over in to me while I have nothing but a concrete barrier to pull over in to. I laid on my horn for a few seconds, he finally jerks his head up, looks shocked, sheepishly waves at me, and KEEPS COMING THE FUCK OVER. IN TO ME.

      On a bike, you become much MUCH more attuned to how shitty the majority of drivers are, because you have no margin for error. In my head, I mark each driver that lane changes without a signal before I get near them. I mark each driver with a cell phone glued to their clueless fat ear. I mark each one doing their makeup in the rear view mirror they should be using to watch for me. I mentally mark each one as a lethal obstacle and a potential manslaughter waiting to happen, because every fucking one of them is. And let me tell you, I wind up marking 50% of the cars around me as dangerous on average. When I find myself in a pack with 75% of the drivers seeming dangerous, I find an opening, tromp the throttle, and get out of that pack quickly. I focus constantly on the flow of traffic, the behavior of drivers around me, and on staying out of the blind spots people create for themselves because they don't know better.

      Most folks driving cars are not driving; they're blissfully sitting patiently until they arrive at their destination. They listen to the radio, check their hair, do their makeup, talk on their goddamn phones, and have blindspots IN FRONT of the vehicle. Put down the goddamn phone, adjust your mirrors to eliminate blind spots (there's guides for it on the internet, use google), do your make up before or after you drive, and do what you're supposed to do sitting in the driver's seat: DRIVE A FUCKING CAR.

      Riding a bike doesn't mean you own the road, you're right. But riding a bike DOES make you a better, more attentive driver by necessity. Learn from their lessons, and you might become a better driver too.

    55. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      So i'm driving down telegraph, check behind me, and change lanes. Suddenly, this motorcyclist is hitting my window.. he was hugging my blind spot (you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"), which is particularly large on the model i was driving.

      You're supposed to check your blind spot before changing lanes. What if a small car was in that blind spot and you hit it?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    56. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you have blind spots in a modern car, your mirrors are not positioned properly

      If you put yourself into a dangerous position then you've only got yourself to blame if you get injured. The place where your vehicle (car or motorbike) should be is behind me, at a distance of about two seconds. Less than a second is dangerous. Less than five meters behind me on a motorbike? I don't care if there is a blind spot or not, I won't take the blame if you get yourself killed. I consider it attempted suicide.I _try_ not to assist anyone who attempts to kill themselves, but I won't take the blame if they succeed.

    57. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Idefix97 · · Score: 1

      Simple explanation: bad case of PMS!

    58. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were in your way while merging, then they were not in your blind spot. Car blind spots are behind you. And even if your car is so big that it somehow has blind spots, moving across lanes puts wide sectors of your side and front fields into which you're moving in clear view. If you're looking.

      So it's obvious that you're lying. And even if you just didn't look carefully enough, and almost killed the biker, then they're not the jerk for just yelling at you. You are the jerk for almost killing them and acting like nothing should happen, not even getting yelled at.

      And you're wrong again about that biker being someone like me. Because when I yell at someone like you for almost running me over, and they just shrug their shoulders instead of indicating somehow that maybe they learned a lesson to be more careful next time, I don't just keep yelling. I smash off your rearview mirror, then beat it to smithereens against your car. If that doesn't sink in the right way, then I smash your window with it. Any funny moves from there, and you've got a guy wearing body armor and a helmet ripping, punching and choking you. Wearing gloves that cover fingerprints. On a motorcycle that can get away without a trace.

      You must understand that bikers are risk takers. And that some of us are me. And that if you try something stupid like almost killing me and then acting like a "jerk" about it, I'm going to ruin your day at least as bad as you almost ruined mine.

      Yes, just hope the "jerk" that nearly ran you over because you're driving like a maniac isn't me, because the moment smash off my read view mirror I'll pull out my .357 and add another eyesocket to your face.

      Just words of caution as to where road rage can lead you.

    59. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Someday my bike and my car will have 360 degree surveillance cameras.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    60. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by entrigant · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blindspot_three_cars_illus.svg

      OK, you *do* realize the orange areas in that diagram represent the mirrors field of view, right? Is understanding such a basic diagram really that hard? The blind spots are to the sides of the vehicle behind the drivers fov and in front of or to the side of the mirrors fov.

    61. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3 · · Score: 1

      I'll second that for the new Dodge Avengers

      --
      "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
    62. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by k3r3nsky'sr3v3ng3 · · Score: 1

      Try driving a Mini Convertible. Nice big pillars, small mirrors, rollcage back seats, tiny back window, and when the top is up one can hardly see a damned thing. Of course, in driver's ed, they tell you not to move your head. Of course, since I don't enjoy merging blindly and my car (01 Accord) actually has rear windows, I turn and look.

      --
      "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight Eisenhower
    63. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      My car really does have a blind spot, most peoples do. Watch your mirrors when a car passes you, it will disappear entirely for a couple seconds. Now ask yourself, if an entire car can disappear, what happens when it's a motorcycle? Sure, I can spend my time trying to look behind me before I change lanes, but I learned the hard way that if you look behind you for too long, you will hit something in front of you.

      This is just the reality of driving. I am not an asshole. You need to learn to try to see things from someone else's point of view.

    64. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the biker was behind me. I changed lanes, and then there he was right in my rear view mirror. He must have been 5 or 10 feet behind me. I think he was trying to pass me when I changed lanes. He must have had to hit his breaks to avoid hitting the back of my car. But like I said, I couldn't see him before that, so I don't think it's fair to say that it was my fault.

      It is his job to avoid hitting me as much as it is mine to avoid hitting him. Since he was behind me, he was in a much better position to see what was going on than I was. Especially since he was on a motorcycle, which has an unrestricted field of view (for the most part).

      "You must understand that bikers are risk takers."

      And you must understand that you are taking a risk by riding a motorcycle. That isn't my fault. You are going to have near misses, no matter how well (or poorly) the rest of us drive.

    65. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"

      This is the excuse of someone who either cannot appropriately position his rear vision mirrors or whose neck is welded in the forward position.

      position your mirrors for the areas that you can't look directly into and TURN YOUR HEAD for the areas your mirrors don't cover. It's a lot easier than explaining to the cops why you killed a motorcyclist.

      The "blind spot" excuse doesn't mitigate your legal and moral responsibility to ensure that you maneuver your vehicle safely. Motorcyclists don't think they "own the road" as you charge: they think they own the tiny bit of road they happen to be occupying at any given point in time. Competent drivers don't whine about imaginary "blind spots"

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    66. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometime you have to turn your head before you change lanes. On that model of car you only have "blind spot" if you fail to look over your left shoulder. Only using your mirrors is insufficient. If you are unable to turn your head to look before changing lanes you should either be really careful or stop driving.

      It is interesting how you choose to rationalize that the motorcyclist was a bad person so you can justify being pissed off that he let you know you almost killed him with your reckless driving.

      I guess that is easier than examining your own bad driving habits.

    67. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only a fine line between gross negligence and willfulness. You obviously know about the flaws of the cars you use, and it is your duty to make sure that you dont endanger anyone else while using it. Either change your behaviour accordingly or upgrade your rear view mirrors from flat to curved ones. With proper mirrors, there's practically no blind spot.

    68. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by drawfour · · Score: 1

      As I said in my original post, "If there is a blind spot that cannot be resolved by repositioning the mirrors, or physically turning your head, then you do not have the correct mirrors for the vehicle you are driving". See, the problem is that you cannot be bothered to do a head check. You are obviously driving too close to the vehicle in front of you such that doing an actual head check is dangerous. The standard procedure for lane changes is seen in this Georgia State "Safe Lane Change" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87pSEXKebQ8

      1. Signal
      2. Check your mirrors
      3. Check your blind spot.

    69. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by drawfour · · Score: 1

      I don't know what driver's ed course you've taken, but I've never once heard of being told not to do a head check. The procedure is always:

      1. Signal
      2. Check mirrors
      3. Check your blind spot (this requires a head check)

      Do a simple search for "safe lane changes" and you'll find that just about every recommendation has those steps. I'm glad that you actually turn and look. Most drivers don't do step 1 or step 3, and somehow magically expect that there will be no vehicle there.

    70. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do this, but a motorcycle is easy to miss.

      You have the unrealistic expectation of perfection. You need to learn that there is a difference between reality and whatever it is you think should happen. The reality is that people make mistakes when driving.

    71. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember princess Dai?

      :-) She was the Princess of Wales, I suppose.. So I'll refrain from being a spelling nazi..

    72. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So i'm driving down telegraph, check behind me, and change lanes.

      Suddenly, this motorcyclist is hitting my window.. he was hugging my blind spot (you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"), which is particularly large on the model i was driving.

      I tell him where to stick it, and he speeds off.

      There is no such thing as a blind spot, unless you are only using your rear- and side-view mirrors, which is poor driving technique.

      Before changing lanes you're supposed to check your mirrors and then glance briefly over your shoulder to the lane you're entering, to verify no one is occupying that space. Only then do you change lanes.

      If that motorcyclist took you to court, you would lose.

    73. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      There is no fucking blind spot. Learn to adjust your mirrors correctly.

      Some cars actually have blind spots no matter how you adjust the mirrors. However, those people need to learn to turn their fucking head. I still turn my head when changing lanes, and I know I don't have a blind spot, and I keep track of cars in the first place so I know where they are.

      I don't drive a motorcycle, I don't even know how, but I know exactly what you mean about drivers.

      I almost got frontended stopped at a stop sign. It was a four-way stop, and a complete moron pulled up on the right at the same time as me, while yammering on a cell phone. We both stopped, and like the rules say, I waited for her to go first, which did, turning left...straight into me, cutting the corner. I kid you not. She stopped about a foot from my front bumper, looking shocked there was a car stopped at the stop sign.

      I actually saw her coming, but didn't manage to hit reverse in time. All I could think was 'Well, this is going to be interesting for her to explain to the police, how she pegged a car from the front which was stopped at a stop sign'

      The thing that then made me laugh afterwards was that she looked at me, right after she stopped, like she expected me to back up. Um, no. After a moment or two, she realized she was in a completely absurd position, backed up, and drove off. I then actually looked out the window and checked to make sure I was behind the white line. Yup.

      She's incredibly lucky I wasn't on her right, or I would have probably gone at the same time as her and rammed straight into her. Because she apparently stopped at a stop sign, and then went forward without looking for other cars stopped there.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    74. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It endangers EVERYBODY on the road, jack ass.

      You know, I created a program that cross referenced phone numbers with plates and address; which was public information, at the time.

      "I could drop by with a note reminding them that they can't just get away with it."
      Then it occured to me most people would be making calls in anger, possible while driving.
      I delete the project after my first few successful runs.
      Not that it mattered, a couple of years later the plate info was pulled from the public.
      Really, could you thnik of a better way to escalate road rage?

      BTW, if you snapped my picture I would report you for reckless driving and stalking. I might even buy a 20 dollar go phone and call the police saying my motorcycle was stolen at gun point.

      There are plate reporting website.

      OTOH, I am sure your driving is angelic~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    75. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I live in the southeast. Do you think i'm stupid enough to trust just my mirrors when changing lanes?"

      Kinda answered your own question there...

      heh, sorry, easy shot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    76. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is a legitimate reason.
      If he can't see you, then he can't see you.
      Drive properly and it's not a problem.

      "There is no such thing as a blind spot, on any vehicle."
      This is a lie. It so stupid, a can't even chalk it up to ignorance. Maybe extreme stupidity.

      Many vehicle's have a moving blind spot, meaning, adjusting for one creates another.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    77. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      Wow, DIAF.

      So i'm driving down telegraph, check behind me, and change lanes.

      You're lying and you know it. You drifted over without even using your blinker.

      Suddenly, this motorcyclist is hitting my window.. he was hugging my blind spot (you can't check it, that's why it's called a "blind spot"), which is particularly large on the model i was driving.

      Bullshit. If you would adjust your mirrors properly in the first place, there would be no blind spot. Secondly, you should not rely on just the mirrors. Try double checking the lane before you merge.

      Was the motorcyclist in his lane? If so, case closed, you were nearly a murderer. You should be on your knees thanking God that you were given another chance at life in the free world rather than a prison cell.

      Remember, it is the responsibility of the person moving or changing lanes to yield to the traffic in that lane. I know, I was once marked "at fault" for an accident by a cop in that situation. I said "guy in the lane was speeding", he said "doesn't matter, you don't change lanes unless you're sure it's clear".

      If so many people are near-missing you, maybe you're that guy!

      Or maybe the roads are insanely dangerous because of people like you. I don't know if the grandparent is a bad driver, but I know for sure that you are.

      I live in Florida and I see all the time people drifting around lane to lane without a care in the world. Usually I am able to keep my distance from them and watch from far behind. The easiest way to tell is when someone is driving a large vehicle as you were.

      Other times I have had the privilege to have people merge right into the side of me. For example I was in the right hand lane on 408, going to exit onto Semoran. I was owning my lane, moving exactly with traffic, and directly alongside the driver to my left. If she looked directly to her right she would have seen me. But she started merging directly into me. I honked and she slowed (not stopped) her approach just long enough for me to downshift and yank the throttle. Otherwise I would have been crushed against the concrete wall.

      I have been saved by torque and speed alone more times than I care to count and I have only been riding since December. Oh and why do I even have a motorcycle? Because my car was crushed when I was rear ended by a big rig, because I had the audacity to slow to 55 when the roads were wet and traffic ahead was jamming up. That's another obvious case closed: rear-ending.

      Don't you dare come in here and lecture motorcyclists about safety when you admit to nearly running them over. You're probably the type of person that whines about loud pipes, too.

      By the way, snapping people's pictures while at speed on a public road is a good way to get yourself, the other driver, and innocent third parties killed. Remember princess Dai?

      Yes, good point, the pain of your soul being sucked from your body by his evil picture capture device can be distracting to a driver. Or are you making a death threat to keep your bad driving a secret?

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    78. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      For the record, I give extra consideration to bikers and bicyclists when i can see them because i'm aware of how horrific the injuries are on those vehicles.

      Now that I've expended my bile on my other reply to your poor driving, I'll relate an interesting anecdote. I read an abstract of a study somewhere (I'm not looking it up, sorry, went running this morning and I'm quite proud of that and it's all the energy I'm expending today) that says drivers can sometimes look directly at a bicyclist, motorcyclist, or smaller car and not even see them. I believe this, of course, from personal experience. The reason is interesting: apparently somewhere in our lower brain we are actually scanning for threats when we drive. So your brain is smart enough to say "oh, him, I could crush him easily" and not pass the info up to your conscious mind. Probably helped cavemen avoid being distracted by squirrels or whatever when trying to kill a tiger.

      I wear a tinted face shield and usually have the sunglasses inside the helmet (yeah, my helmet rocks) flipped down too during the day. This isn't just because it's deathly hot and bright in Florida. I like to think that the alien look of an inhuman face glaring at drivers trips up the uncanny valley and causes me to be perceived as a threat, thereby causing people to pay attention to me. My bike and gear are also flashy "danger colors" in nature: black and red. Helmet's white, hopefully good night visibility. But who knows, I just wear what's comfortable and matches the bike, but it's nice to think I have an edge when it comes to safety.

      Tip for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists: make eye contact with (other) drivers. It may save your life.

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    79. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      Motorcyclists don't think they "own the road" as you charge: they think they own the tiny bit of road they happen to be occupying at any given point in time.

      Slight correction: I own the width of the lane. I'm not allowed to lane-split in Florida so I don't. Even when I really really want to. I respect the lane space you are occupying in your car. Please respect mine when I'm on a bike.

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    80. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh, sure. You very clearly stated "Sure, I can spend my time trying to look behind me before I change lanes, but I learned the hard way that if you look behind you for too long, you will hit something in front of you." Which certainly seems to indicate that you don't take the time to head-check your blind spot, you just check your mirrors

      I have no expectation of perfection. I realize that mistakes do happen. But which is it? Do you do a head check for your blind spot, or not? Because it seems that you cannot be bothered. And doing a headcheck to cover your blind spot is part of a safe lane change.

    81. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by drawfour · · Score: 1

      "There is no such thing as a blind spot, on any vehicle." This is a lie. It so stupid, a can't even chalk it up to ignorance. Maybe extreme stupidity.

      Try re-reading my post. You see, you only quote one part, which when not paired with the other sentence, seems unreasonable. Here, let me give you the whole quote:

      There is no such thing as a blind spot, on any vehicle. If there is a blind spot that cannot be resolved by repositioning the mirrors, or physically turning your head, then you do not have the correct mirrors for the vehicle you are driving.

      In other words, if you have a blind spot that cannot be corrected for by doing a headcheck, then you do not have the proper mirrors for the vehicle you are driving. I stand by that statement, as will any law officer or insurance company. If your statement after hitting someone while changing lanes is "he was in my blind spot!!!", you are admitting fault. Your responsibility as a driver making a lane change is to ensure that the spot you are moving into is clear of any other vehicle. If you do not verify that, you have made an unsafe lane change. And if you do not have the tools to do that (signal, check mirror, head check the blind spot), then you should be getting better mirrors.

    82. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      I've had one wreck where a guy SITTING BESIDE ME at a stoplight pulled slightly ahead of me as we moved, waited for me to disappear in to his blindspot, then nearly took the front end off my bike forcing me to brake harshly and drop the bike. He just thought I somehow mysteriously teleported out of his view.

      Wow, I hope he at least noticed you on the ground in his rearview and stopped to check on you and exchange info. Were you in traffic? That's the situation that worries me... dropping the bike with vehicles coming up behind.

      I had another one where I was RIGHT NEXT TO HIM in slow rush hour traffic. Like literally sitting by his driver side door. He pulls over in to me while I have nothing but a concrete barrier to pull over in to. I laid on my horn for a few seconds, he finally jerks his head up, looks shocked, sheepishly waves at me, and KEEPS COMING THE FUCK OVER. IN TO ME.

      Yup. I was making a right turn onto a street and I noticed an oncoming pickup. Its right turn signal was blinking, but my intuition said wait. Maybe I noticed the speed was too high, particularly at the whiny-baby speeds everyone makes turns around here (that's the thing....despite how bad everyone drives, they sure are careful to slow to a crawl at every possible occasion). Anyway, sure enough, he sailed on through the intersection.

      So the next traffic light happens to be red, and I pull up alongside him on the left. Motion for him to roll down the window, then politely mention his turn signal was on and I nearly pulled in front of him. And the turn signal was still on. He half-pauses from his phone conversation and says "Yeah, thanks", and looks at me baffled, like he doesn't understand why that might matter, or even what he should do next. After I stare at him in disbelief for at least 5sec, he finally switches the turn signal off! Then he rolls the window back up and resumes the phone conversation.

      Now I am the most introverted, least likely person to chat up another driver ever. And I was polite about it. But you have to be assertive on a bike. I think being assertive in person on bike-related topics comes from having to learn to be assertive on the road.

      Riding a bike doesn't mean you own the road, you're right. But riding a bike DOES make you a better, more attentive driver by necessity. Learn from their lessons, and you might become a better driver too.

      I had always heard this before and I always thought it applied to everyone but me. I always checked mirrors, head-checked, looked carefully and proactively for bicycles, motorcycles, etc. But after I had the bike for a few months, I rented a car and was amazed at the difference. I'm not talking about texting while driving (which I will admit I have done in the past) or whatever. I mean just noticing all the other vehicles around and their behavior and being ready what they might do. I used to try to make a mental model of the traffic around me and keep it in mind but was never very good at it. On a bike that skill comes quick.

      I used to have real bad luck with my car. Traffic is crazy in Orlando and I got in a lot of accidents. Almost all of them the fault of the other driver. Since I've had the bike, not one. Close calls, yeah, but even in those cases I noticed it happening and through luck (probably) or quickness (self-flattery) I was able to avoid it. No more "what just happened? phew..."

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    83. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      What the hell do you think too long means? You need to learn to read.

    84. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by bobkoure · · Score: 1
      So you're one of those drivers who switch lanes without even looking to see if there's something in your blind spot.

      Good going!

      Ever notice how the rest of us actually look before doing something like that?

    85. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The areas shown as "blind" in the diagram are easily seen simply by turning ones head. Mirrors don't give you enough information to change lanes safely: Safely changing lanes involves turning ones head to see what is in the area you can't see with mirrors.

    86. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I've made a habit of doing just that. I've also made a habit of not hanging out in someones blind spot as that is just an absurdly stupid thing to do.

    87. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by riondluz · · Score: 0

      It will be an autonomous system. The laptop will alert the cop, giving them pretextual authority to stop the vehicle; if they want to, otherwise the system will issue the registrant a citation directly from DMV central. This whole thing reeks of yet another shake-down designed to enrich the State.

      --
      resist propaganda
    88. Re:Just Looking Up a License Plate Number? by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna have to start dressing like the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse or Spawn or something when I go riding...but that also gives credence to "Loud Pipes Save Lives"...course, that applies more to me than to you, given the respective styles of our motorcycles.

      And it seems to me that some people think that "blind spots" are places you can't see at all...but it only refers to your mirrors. The only people who have a legitimate gripe about that are truckers, and most of them do pretty dang good on being cautious.

      I drove a big '87 Crown Vic for about 8 years, and the only times I "didn't see someone" were when I was driving like a shithead and not paying enough attention. I don't make a habit of riding in blind spots, but if you're changing lanes, you are the person breaking status quo and thusly you are responsible for injury caused by your action. So turn your head further next time, jackass!

  8. I've got no problem... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as technology like this is used only for identifying stolen cars, cars with expired registrations, insurance, etc. I'm perfectly fine with it. I like the idea of making sure cars are properly registered, insured, inspected, etc. because I'm the only safe driver out there and everybody else is a terrible driver! Seriously, though, driving is a privilege, and if you want that privilege then you need to make sure your car is safe (inspected) and insured in the event of an accident with another drive.

    Where I get concerned is if, as the submission mentions, is if the police, feds, etc. decide to start using this to track people randomly. I recall reading an article about this technology a few years ago and it indicated that license plate data wasn't archived in any way. The camera just snaps a picture of the plate, uses image recognition to determine the numbers & letters, then does a quick database search to see if it's stolen, etc. then discards the data if no match is found. One issue I recall in the article I read was that it wasn't 100% accurate, so if a potential match was found it would display it for the officer in the car to make the final determination. If the technology still isn't 100% accurate then simply storing results wouldn't be all that useful since you couldn't rely on it. But if they've improved the accuracy then it certainly wouldn't be too difficult to start doing that...

    Having said all that, if you're concerned about this then you might as well just stay locked in your home for the rest of your life. The growing use of security cameras means many people are caught on video numerous times a day. Cameras are being used more and more to help deal with traffic congestion in major cities, so they can already track cars that way. And most toll roads now let you use transponders to pay without stopping, and all that data can easily track you as well. Add to all that the fact that cellular phones can be tracked if you have your phone on, GPS units in cars may cache data that can be recovered, etc.

    So if you don't want to be tracked then don't ever use a cell phone, gps, drive on toll roads, or drive through any cities or other areas where traffic cameras are used....

    1. Re:I've got no problem... by thorndt · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct: the cat is well and truly out of the bag. There is practically no way to regain our privacy from the prying eyes of the government. And many corporations.

      --
      - The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
    2. Re:I've got no problem... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      So if you don't want to be tracked, you should stay at home and shut yourself off from the activities that you used to perform daily, legally, and with no watchful eyes. Why is it that you are OK with this? Why is it that being tracked is ok, as long as it is only to lookup those that may have a lapsed registration/insurance/warrant. When governments tack on additional requirements to driving, will you be ok with that as well?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. Re:I've got no problem... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is. But neither you, nor I, are willing to shed that much blood or die in the process of regaining that lost ground. Therefore it will likely not happen unless others, aside from the unwilling you and unwilling I, will have to dirty their hands.

      I am willing to bet HUGE bucks nobody is willing to fight the level of ground war, globe wide, that would be required to put the insane super governments of today back in their place... "a bunch of bandits enter a village... they kill the elders, kill the hunters and rape the women. To their children later, they pass the power to kill anyone except each other, and tell everyone what to do. They become 'the kings of old' and their children become their heirs. Centuries later they are worshipped as those who 'gave us society and laws'... yep... the codified law... several hundred reasons why they can kill you, and why you're not allowed to kill them when they show up to do it. Fun huh?" Sure, the technologies and the groups of bandits have changed... over time, but its the same groups of bandits or their descendants being "elected" today. Violent bandits were replaced by con artists who employ violent bandits, called cops, but one way or another, its the same ancient scam being perpetuated. Ah well, another drink to their names! They "protect" us... probably only from freedom and true prosperity.

      Of course stopping voting en masse, would've been the miracle cure, but that is even less likely than a vast majority of honest citizens getting up in arms and teaching their overreaching governments to keep their hands off and not falling for the same trick the way they always do when they actually rebel... yeah... as if. I gave up hope for my fellow man a year or two ago. I feel better since I stopped caring... or it could just be the numb hopelessness kicking in. On the other hand since I've heavily invested in police state technologies some years ago when I was still stupid enough to employ Americans and bid for jobs and do all kinds of hard work that got taxed heavily, (no joke) and I'm at least making enough to have completely closed my business, quit working and stay at home. Now I'm bored, maybe I'll write a book about the wisdom of investing in the stupidity of mankind. Actually I think Warren Buffett already did. Or maybe I'll go fishing. Reading all this shit keeps confirming just how stupid humanity is. Almost as stupid as fish. "Hey look... worm swimming in the middle of a lake... on a shiny metal thing... quick, lets eat it before someone else does." Wow, that line sounds just like voting campaigns.

      Cue in the fucking aliens already, I'm sick of this show.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    4. Re:I've got no problem... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to be tracked, rather than staying locked away all day, why not fight back against the tracking?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    5. Re:I've got no problem... by Derosian · · Score: 1

      It's a relatively simple procedure to create a program that reads the incoming license plate data and identifies the location of the police vehicle which took it and then to archive the location of said license plate. In fact I could probably write a program to do it install it on the server and then have it E-mail me this information on a daily basis. Actually this may not be such a bad thing if we could get our hands on it. After all, license plate information has never been used with ill intent right. ;D

    6. Re:I've got no problem... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      You're right, so why not let the government regulate health care?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    7. Re:I've got no problem... by Grave · · Score: 1

      Yes there is. It's called a Constitutional Convention. I would hope it does not come to that, but there may well be a day in my lifetime that the system becomes so completely broken and the existing Constitution so thoroughly butchered and bypassed that we the people are left with no other options but to start over.

    8. Re:I've got no problem... by hemorex · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, driving is a privilege,

      This little meme is repeated endlessly, yet I've never heard it justified. Will someone please explain to me how operating a device I own, on infrastructure that I am required to pay for, is a privilege?

    9. Re:I've got no problem... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

      You might want to go read my post again. I clearly stated that it wouldn't be difficult to archive the license plates that are read. I also said that the article I read about this technology a few years ago indicated the accuracy wasn't 100% and relied on the police officer in the car to verify a potential match. If the data being collected is that inaccurate then it makes no sense at all to collect it. Any attempt to use it for any legal reasons would get laughed out of court because of the inaccuracy.

    10. Re:I've got no problem... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Will someone please explain to me how operating a device I own, on infrastructure that I am required to pay for, is a privilege?

      You're driving on public roads, which means you have to obey all public laws, regulations, etc. Those laws stipulate that you must have a drivers license, carry insurance, have your car inspected, etc. If you're unwilling to accept those requirements then stay off the road.

      Of course if you don't want to abide by those laws you can always buy your own private roads and do whatever the hell you want on them.

    11. Re:I've got no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is the third tard post that says the same thing: "as long this technology is used to torture, waterboard, send to Guantanamo and kill Mexicans, Arabs, Niggers and everybody that doesn't drink the same soft drink I am drinking, I am perfectly fine with it"

      What is that I wonder? Does Guantanamo's torture personnel decided to post to /. all together at the same time?

    12. Re:I've got no problem... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      I doubt to the core of my being that the Bush clan is related to any of "the kings of old." The world has changed a lot since what you say is the way things are was actually true. Democracy isn't perfect, hell it's barely functional, but it does work and is getting better all the time, and I have yet to see anything that works better.

      The shift to bottom up government has been a slow one, and one that has, and is still, changing the very nature of human life and existence. I'm sorry you were raised in a culture that favors the quick fix, but these things move over generations. I'm certain, as the last 100 years of history has shown, that the next 100 years will bring even more freedom, without the need of major rebellion, or pointless angry bloodletting because someone has a better life then you.

    13. Re:I've got no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is a circular argument -- It's a privilege because you have a bunch of rules to follow else you won't be permitted to exercise your privilege.

      Freedom of travel is a right and the constitution does not contain any language restricting it. Just because a lot of bureaucrats have tried to usurp that right and a lot of sheeple have accepted it, does not mean it still isn't a right.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:I've got no problem... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Will someone please explain to me how operating a device I own, on infrastructure that I am required to pay for, is a privilege?

      You are perfectly free to operate that device you own on your very own private property that you personally own, without any interference.

      However, when you operate it on a public road (or the private property of someone else), it is quite legitimate for the property owner (or the Statew -- which is the People) to require that those who do so both are competent to operate it safely AND pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure used.

      Gee, those libertarians, what a bunch of freeloading cheapies.

    15. Re:I've got no problem... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Freedom of travel is a right and the constitution does not contain any language restricting it. Just because a lot of bureaucrats have tried to usurp that right and a lot of sheeple have accepted it, does not mean it still isn't a right.

      Travelling is not ONLY done by car, but can be done by foot, helicopter, bicycle, bus, hack, horseback, train, dirigible, truck, airplane, donkey, riverboat, section-car, lorry, goat carriage, jitney, pogo-stick or stage coach. At the time your holy "just a piece of paper" constitution was written, the fastest thing that travelled was a galloping horse, and it didn't gallop for very long before getting exhausted.

    16. Re:I've got no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Travelling is not ONLY done by car, but can be done by foot, helicopter, bicycle, bus, hack, horseback, train, dirigible, truck, airplane, donkey, riverboat, section-car, lorry, goat carriage, jitney, pogo-stick or stage coach.

      And yet none of those methods of travel were restricted in the constitution either. So your point is moot.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:I've got no problem... by mxs · · Score: 1

      As long as technology like this is used only for identifying stolen cars, cars with expired registrations, insurance, etc. I'm perfectly fine with it. I like the idea of making sure cars are properly registered, insured, inspected, etc. because I'm the only safe driver out there and everybody else is a terrible driver! Seriously, though, driving is a privilege, and if you want that privilege then you need to make sure your car is safe (inspected) and insured in the event of an accident with another drive.

      So you have no qualms with this technology because it has one good use you can think of and they can claim they need it for unsupervised and without any rules about other uses. Since you don't have anything to hide, you are in the clear. Check.

      Where I get concerned is if, as the submission mentions, is if the police, feds, etc. decide to start using this to track people randomly.

      Once the data exists, it will be abused. Period. The only way for data such as collected license plate locations & times not to be abused is not to collect them. Period.
      Even if the most well-meaning person enacted the most well-meaning law stipulating the exact conditions under which any collected data may be used and excluding every other use, even then, the data will be abused. Legally. It'll take a while for the data collected to become really valuable to some other scumbag legislator or some other scumbag criminal, or, hell, just some other part of law enforcement. What will happen then is that a new law will be enacted extending the cases where that data may be used. The original well-meaning legislator is never consulted, nor are any concerns from that camp looked at.

      Since you already agreed that it was a good idea for this data to be collected, you also accept any and all other abuses of that data, now and in the future.

      I recall reading an article about this technology a few years ago and it indicated that license plate data wasn't archived in any way.

      Yes, and we ALL know just how verifiable that is, and how much truth there is to it. Scan a license plate. Ask the computer whether there are any outstanding warrants for it. Now, tell me, why would that computer, probably not located in the vehicle mind you, why would that computer not log any accesses ? And if the police department says it doesn't ordinarily log such accesses, why do you have any reason to believe them ? More importantly, do you know that they are the only ones who COULD be logging this data ? The article mentioned the DHS. What is to stop them from tampering with the system ?
      (This would be fairly trivial to automate on a grand scale and collect in a giant, centralized database. The least you'd get is tons of location information for license plates, as accurate as a police precinct. Juicy data !)

      The camera just snaps a picture of the plate, uses image recognition to determine the numbers & letters, then does a quick database search to see if it's stolen, etc. then discards the data if no match is found.

      The camera and the on-board unit may discard it, sure. Do you REALLY think that "a quick database search" is not logged ? I have a bridge to sell you.

      One issue I recall in the article I read was that it wasn't 100% accurate, so if a potential match was found it would display it for the officer in the car to make the final determination. If the technology still isn't 100% accurate then simply storing results wouldn't be all that useful since you couldn't rely on it.

      Of course it will be useful. Have you not watched the news lately ? The "terorist watchlist" has one million names on it, many of which variations of spellings, lots of which generic names, and the majority of which on people that are not terrorists. You can't rely on that list. At all. It is not well maintained, it contains many errors, mistakes, omissions, spiteful entries, no oversight, e

    18. Re:I've got no problem... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      I've actually got a better life than most. There is a reason that I'm unwilling to fight over this issue IRL. I didn't say they're related by blood, merely that the same style of scam is being run.

      You must mistake the idea of "freedom in words" for actual freedom. Try driving without license plates in a car you've purchased rather than stolen. See if you are treated as a free man or as a bandit. It won't matter if you got papers to prove the sale and the seller is known and can be reached to verify your purchase. It won't matter if you know more about maintaining vehicles than the cop in question. You will be treated as a bandit for breaking "regulations".

      I can cite quite a few other examples, but I'm sure none will be enough to sway you. And you're in the majority. Then again, the word "democracy" is nowhere in the Constitution. It wasn't founded as such. It wasn't in the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution of the USA either. Those people really really hated the idea of "democracy". They had their reasons, and the more of the average voters I meet, the more I realize why.

      I'm not worried about going poor or being in trouble, I'm just sick of complying with "yet another regulation for my own good"... if it was for my own good, they wouldn't have to threaten me or you with armed thugs and property theft ("democracy" calls it confiscation, just like the communists, nazis and royalists often do) to get me to comply, would they? Tried building a home on a piece of property YOU own? Enjoy the paperwork and nosy inspectors trying to make sure you're "up to code". And I live in one of the more "free" parts of the country with less regulations and less scumbag enforcers. Those of you who live in big cities with TRULY nosy governing forces probably have to "spread'em and take it"... with no other choice in sight.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    19. Re:I've got no problem... by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      honestly codes exist because it helps maintain a civil society. I'm an anarchist and in total support of direct democracy and selecting your government, and I know the US is is an oligopolistic republic. My main point is that I think things are getting better over the long run. You will have a man like Bush who rules by mandate, but you have had more people who vest power in law, it's just the asshats are way more visible.
      I put all my faith in law. I don't mean like traffic law, but the rights of man style law. I believe there will be a day when the only government is just natural law and all other government is your choice, like which insurance you carry.

      I visit Mexico regularly. And I visit neighbor hoods where the people make the equivalent to middle class Americans, and they are shit because their is no codes. Sure by saying you can't throw up a shack on a piece of land in a neighborhood is depriving them of a right, but you have to look at the rights of the neighbors. If they have established a code for their area by mutual consent (or nation) then you would have no more right to throw up a shack then you do to start insulting people at a party I know that many codes are money grabs, but some, such as levels of uranium in water, are done becuase there need to be a set minimum. It sucks in general and as things stand it's very hard to decide to leave, but thats just something we need to work on.

    20. Re:I've got no problem... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      The "shack" I was considering building was not exactly what you probably consider a "shack". But frankly, I've learned to go against the flow... and it has paid massive dividends... as has banking on the stupidity of man. Things haven't gotten better... for the vast majority they just seem to.

      Show me "mutual consent" in any building code? Some idiots let others build their homes without supervision, and they built homes that burned easily. Laws were enacted to protect the stupid from their stupidity. (Willful ignorance is called "what" again? Exactly my point.)

      I've had the pleasure of realizing that there is a law in Mexico, its just further along the path than ours are. Their cops can drag you out and beat you up and steal what you own and don't have to worry about rote memorization of laws citing WHY they can do it. Give it 12 or 13 more years in the USA, we'll get there... have no fear.

      Amazing thing is, people don't CHECK for that kind of crap before moving into an area. Talking about uranium levels "being at a minimum". I moved from a place when they fluoridated the water, and didn't reach "my consent" as you call it. Mutual consent would've involved my agreeing to have my tap water poisoned, right? No code is reached by mutual consent, it is usually imposed upon the unwilling for the benefit of those passing the code, not those voting for it. I would be ALL for mutual consent.

      In a barely middle class neighborhood I lived in, several of the locals wanted underground power lines. We got together with our other neighbors and negotiated an agreement amongst each other. It governed ONLY those of us that wanted underground lines. We paid for it, and the others neither got such power lines, nor wanted them. We had to run around two properties who didn't want them, but in the end we got what we wanted, and their power still went out the next time a heavy branch nailed a few of their lines.

      And until I left, for the water fluoridation issue, years later, we still didn't have underground "melting" or "fires" as so many claim is common. We did however, pay top dollar for top quality work. Most people abiding by mere regulations do the minimum. The crowd I lived around back then were people who respected themselves, despite nobody making more than 50k a year at the time.

      Our neighborhood contract, much like our patrolling during a hurricane while some were out, was a clear and clean issue of "this is OUR ground", we don't need cops to shoot at the ones who live here or arrest innocents we allow to stay here... end state maintenance here means "here" and not "anywhere beyond here". You should put up those placards and gate your community, if you want privacy. Cops have to ask for permission to enter, and bad guys have to remember that robbers can and do get shot...

      Of course it also involves "getting to know your neighbors"... it took some effort, since most people prefer to vege out in front of the Tee Vee rather than get outside the house... but there is a fat chance we'll get a drug dealer, gang banger or terrorist buying or renting a house in this area without noticing him, and rightfully either turning him in, or "persuading" him or her to relocate, because we tend to know each other out here. I know Bob, and Rodney and Joe down the road, and they sure as hell know me. We've barbecued and fished together, and at least two of them hunt together when the season opens (and I've fixed their computers before, as a favor exchange of course :). And my neighbors were cool with me building my "shack" in the last place I was at, it was the "county/city" governments that didn't agree with it back there, but down here I don't have that issue... zoning laws seem to not exist at this point, and most people can't stand new comers who try to come and vote for new laws... so this is a good place to live for the time being, without having to pay some bureaucratic scumbag to build a home... how long it stays like this, the gods of hell only know. But

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    21. Re:I've got no problem... by Derosian · · Score: 1

      I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your post, I was adding new information or a new perspective.

    22. Re:I've got no problem... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

      And yet none of those methods of travel were restricted in the constitution either.

      The US Constitution doesn't restrict an individuals rights to ANYTHING. The US Constitution says nothing about murder, rape, selling drugs, bank robbery, forgery, underage drinking, etc. but they're all illegal. The US Constitution also says nothing about requiring passports or visas to travel to foreign countries or to let foreigners travel here either, but they're required by federal law.

      The US Constitution as originally written outlined the three branches of government, the power and limitations granted to individual states, the process for ratifying amendments, etc. In other words, the US Constitution defines the federal and state governments, and gives them the power to pass the laws that we currently have that make murder, rape, etc. illegal and the laws that require passports, visas, and even drivers licenses.

      The 27 amendments further define the responsibilities of the government and the rights of American citizens. The first 10, the Bill of Rights , specifically cover well known issues like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, protection against unwarranted search/seizure, guarantee of speedy trials, forbidding excessive bail, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, etc. The ONLY amendment to the US Constitution that introduced any restrictions to US citizens was the 18th (prohibition) which was repealed by the 21st amendment. In other words, the amendments further define the responsibilities and duties of the state & federal government bodies and also ensure further rights of individuals that the government can not take away. Because of the First Amendment (Freedom of speech) the government can not pass any laws that restrict the speech of US citizens, restrict their practice of religion, etc. That's how the US Constitution works. There aren't any amendments to the US Constitution that make driving a right because the legislature has never seen driving as a right. They recognize that driving is a privilege to be managed by individual states (with direction from federal legislation) and not a right that needs to be granted to all US citizens.

      You might want to go learn a little more about how the government and laws work before you make baseless statements regarding the US Constitution. You still haven't provided anything that backs up your claim that driving is a right and not a privilege.

    23. Re:I've got no problem... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution doesn't restrict an individuals rights to ANYTHING.

      That would be false. The constitution specifically defines where and under what circumstances the state can impinge on the rights of citizens and residents - that's its sole purpose. Everything else not defined by the constitution is a right reserved to the people, ergo driving is a right.

      You might want to go learn a little more about how the government and laws work before you make baseless statements regarding the US Constitution.

      Yeah, right.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:I've got no problem... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 1

      That would be false. The constitution specifically defines where and under what circumstances the state can impinge on the rights of citizens and residents

      Um. Go read my post a bit more carefully. I clearly stated that the US Constitution doesn't restrict an individuals rights. I never said that it doesn't restrict governmental rights. In fact I stated that's exactly one of its purposes.

      Everything else not defined by the constitution is a right reserved to the people, ergo driving is a right.

      Don't make me laugh. As I said before, the US Constitution mentions NOTHING about drinking/smoking ages, bank robbery, forgery, murder, etc. By your twisted logic, the fact that these things aren't mentioned means they're rights afforded to every citizen in the US.

      Give it up. It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. I won't be wasting any more time on you.

    25. Re:I've got no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything else not defined by the constitution is a right reserved to the people, ergo driving is a right.

      Don't make me laugh. As I said before, the US Constitution mentions NOTHING about drinking/smoking ages, bank robbery, forgery, murder, etc. By your twisted logic, the fact that these things aren't mentioned means they're rights afforded to every citizen in the US.

      He's right. "That which is not expressly forbidden is permitted."

      If your state/county/township had no laws against selling tobacco to minors, robbing banks, murdering, etc. then you would indeed have every right to do these things.

    26. Re:I've got no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Travelling is not ONLY done by car, but can be done by foot, helicopter, bicycle, bus, hack, horseback, train, dirigible, truck, airplane, donkey, riverboat, section-car, lorry, goat carriage, jitney, pogo-stick or stage coach.

      So, if it is OK to restrict travel by car, why is it not OK to restrict travel by foot or any other means? Any argument that you might make to restrict one form of travel is going to apply to all forms of travel. Thus if any form of travel is restricted then the right to travel freely is restricted as well.

    27. Re:I've got no problem... by msi · · Score: 1

      One issue I recall in the article I read was that it wasn't 100% accurate, so if a potential match was found it would display it for the officer in the car to make the final determination. If the technology still isn't 100% accurate then simply storing results wouldn't be all that useful since you couldn't rely on it. But if they've improved the accuracy then it certainly wouldn't be too difficult to start doing that...

      How much do you think it will cost you in legal fees to persuade a jury of 12 of your peers that it is not 100% accurate when your plate come up in a child kidnapping case?

    28. Re:I've got no problem... by riondluz · · Score: 0

      >Where I get concerned is if, as the submission mentions, is if the police, feds, etc. decide to start using this to track people randomly

      There'll be nothing random about it. Its just another tool to control the populace that can be used in conjunction with TPMS; the cameras will be another way to track EVERYONE, in real-time.

        "Beginning last September, all vehicles sold in the US
      have been required to have Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)
      installed.
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/205203

        FFS, smell the roses! NationalID, RFID, cameras everywhere, datamining and DPI, overhead syping, COFEE, the erosion of Habeas Corpus and Posse Comitatus, "Fusion Centers" popping up like
      mushrooms in cowpies ...

      Where do you think "smart cameras for cops" fits into that equation?
      Ever since the police re-branded themselves "Public Safety Officers", their job has been
      to increasingly nanny-ify the masses. We gave them the power because "nobody would argue
      against more public safety".

      But it's all a shakedown and a sham. Speeding tickets are a good example. Nearly everyone
      speeds, so its mostly a tax on heavy commuters who happen to be at the wrong place at the
      wrong time (the speedtrap). The safety police argue that speed kills - wrong! loss of
      control kills; at any speed. Speeding tickets enrich the State and the Insurance companies.
      More laws that give the police the authority to detain will, at the very least, increase
      their revenue stream and at the very worst infringe upon our rights to travel unhindered.
      (which is a human right - protecting our right to survive)

      This is just another example of the camel getting its nose in our tent and us being to
      stupid to whack it the hell out before its sleeping in our beds.

      --
      resist propaganda
    29. Re:I've got no problem... by riondluz · · Score: 0

      > I clearly stated that the US Constitution doesn't restrict an individuals rights.
      Correct, the constitution limits the governments rights to infringe upon its citizens.
      > I never said that it doesn't restrict governmental rights.
      Which is, in fact, what it does; very precisely.
      > In fact I stated that's exactly one of its purposes.

      > As I said before, the US Constitution mentions NOTHING about drinking/smoking ages, bank
      > robbery, forgery, murder, etc.

      From my POV, the modern function of the State is to undermine the constitution whereever
      possible in order to give the government more power over its citizens.
      I believe that it is possible to prove that, both on State and Federal levels, those
      elected do not act in compliance w/the electorate as much as for moneyed interests.
      And, it is these governments, our 'elected' leaders, who use threats to public saftey
      in order to legislate things like "drinking/smoking ages", or helmet laws, or anything
      else that a) does not in and of itself infringing on another's liberties while b) infringing
      on our own.

      > By your twisted logic, the fact that these things aren't
      > mentioned means they're rights afforded to every citizen in the US.
      Perhaps they should be! Perhaps emphasis should be re-placed on people taking ownership and
      responsibility for their actions and the 'direct' consequences their behaviors have on others.
      But if so, then forgo 'thought crimes' and 'potential' harm and the endless permutations of
      what if's and stick to the real and actual.

      Certainly robbery, murder, extortion, graft, etc.. are just that - crimes. Someone else has been
      directly harmed as a result of one's actions and the perp should be
      held accountable. That is what the function of the police is supposed to be. Not to enforce
      laws that criminalize people for behavior that has no 'direct' consequence of injury to others.

      Driving drunk? So what. So many people are driving/living under the influence of something
      that alcohol is only one of the usual suspects. So what if you cross the line, or weave.
      That, in and of itself, should not be breaking any laws and the cop who spots you should be
      comming to your assistance, not to arrest you. OTOH, if you cause injury or property damage
      then you should pay, and pay some more. Maybe you lose your ability to drive for 10 years, or
      forever.
      If the consequences of the actual damage are great enough then we don't need laws that create
      percieved damages for which we are penalized. I speed, yes, I am a speeder. Not always, but
      I drive over the limits every day. I also have not had an accident ever. There are no dents
      or dings on my car. Speed limits create a perception of mitigating damages, but in fact
      do not. I dislike wearing a helmet when on my bike. I dont have accidents and even if i did,
      the likelihood of the helmet protecting me is dubious.

      By today's measure, personal ownership of one's actions and accountability for same has become
      a quaint notion as the State co-opts more control over peoples' lives.
      And, from the LEA perspective, the power of control we've given them has just created an
      'us vs. them' mentality which translates into 'management issues'; looking upon citizens as something with distain.

      The legal system heavily reinforces this. The police were not meant to be our governors; and
      before extolling the notion that we are a 'nation of laws' it would behoove one to ask who those
      laws serve.

      Generally, I dont have anything against cops and would even buy a beer for some i've encountered.
      But I absolutely hate being put in an adversarial position (disadvantaged at that) with those
      to whom I should want to turn to in an emergency. Making cops into nannys and creating ever
      more laws for them to enforce has done this. It's reprehensible.

      So, yes; in a twisted way, drinking laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, etc.. are a mechanism
      that dep

      --
      resist propaganda
  9. I'm not worried by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    While all this certainly has lots of scary potential, I have firm faith in the incompetence of bureaucrats and civil servants everywhere. And having worked for the SSA, believe me, I've seen it in action. The main danger is still the same as it always was, regardless of the tech involved. Namely, that some psycho with a badge will take a dislike to you, for whatever reason.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  10. No problem as it is, if implemented correctly by thirty-seven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see a problem with the current use of these camera systems, assuming it is implemented reasonably. By "reasonably", I mean something like the following: Each camera is connected to a database of the plates of known "offenders", such as stolen cars, fugitives, or more trivial things like cars with lapsed registration, insurance, or failed emissions tests. It scans all the licence plates it sees and checks them against the database - if there is a match, the police or Motor Vehicle Administration enforcement can take action. Otherwise, the scanned plate is not stored and certainly the time and place at which is was scanned is not stored.

    As I said, if the system is implemented in a reasonably way, like my scenario, then I have no problem with it being used to check for known infractions and offences - no matter how trivial.

    --

    Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    1. Re:No problem as it is, if implemented correctly by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      I researched this about a year ago. In the article I read the database of plates that was gathered by the officer was being deleted at the end of each shift. However I got the DISTINCT impression that the police were considered keeping the database for far longer periods of time but hadn't figured out the data transfer issues and storage. The video I saw of this was pretty enlightening, officers would cruise up and down the aisles of large shopping centers looking for flagged cars. Stolen cars, expired stickers, warrants for arrest, all sorts of things. Even scarier was a picture of a bridge in Canada that had FIVE of these devices - one covering EACH lane of traffic recording ALL cars going by.

      Youtube has some vids on this, the one i saw is this one I think -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ibjQjQQOQ Check out the bridge in the 3:45 min mark or so. Their final statement at the end is pretty telling "ALPR is going to revolutionize the way we police in North America" Yeah, THAT'S what I'm afraid of!

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    2. Re:No problem as it is, if implemented correctly by mxs · · Score: 1

      I don't see a problem with the current use of these camera systems, assuming it is implemented reasonably. By "reasonably", I mean something like the following: Each camera is connected to a database of the plates of known "offenders", such as stolen cars, fugitives, or more trivial things like cars with lapsed registration, insurance, or failed emissions tests. It scans all the licence plates it sees and checks them against the database - if there is a match, the police or Motor Vehicle Administration enforcement can take action. Otherwise, the scanned plate is not stored and certainly the time and place at which is was scanned is not stored.

      Nice fairy tale. Now tell me, Peter Pan, how do you verify that this data is not stored ? That the database, at a remote location, does not log accesses ? (and be they for statistics or just abuse monitoring) Do you take the officer's word for it ? Does that officer have a degree in computer science, or at the very least training in database administration ? Who told him that the database does not log ?

    3. Re:No problem as it is, if implemented correctly by swarsron · · Score: 1

      the problem is that i won't be used just for that once it's installed. Little story from germany: Some years ago our politicians decided to charge trucks for using our highways. So they ordered an system (Toll collect) that tracks which road is used by which truck, most of it is done with a little on board unit. But to prevent abuse they installed controll points on all major streets in germany. Which, of course, can be used to track arbitrary vehicles. But that was no problem, since politicians of all partys promised never to use the data for anything else. That was until some person (don't remember exactly what happened) was hit by a truck on a rest station and killed IIRC. Since nobody wanted to be the one to tell them not to use the data in this case there was a precedent and it's now used in relation to severe crimes. Want to bet how long until it's used for minor problems like missing insurance? What's preventing this infrastructure being abused much more in the furture? There is no way to prevent it but not to install it in the first place

    4. Re:No problem as it is, if implemented correctly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I said, if the system is implemented in a reasonably way, like my scenario, then I have no problem with it being used to check for known infractions and offences - no matter how trivial.

      Dream on. Can you cite a single law that has ever been written which forbids any mission creep or other not-explicitly-defined uses? How many with MEANINGFUL and ENFORCED sanctions for misuse? You can be sure that any time a technology is misused by a cop, he will get off using the "in good faith" canard.

      Example: Asshole in Detroit wants to break child custody by ex-wife. He has a friend in the FBI. Ex has remarried. FBI prick runs background check on new husband and finds minor criminal background. Asshole runs to court to claim exclusive custody, "citing POTENTIAL child endangerment". Judge tells asshole to ram it.

      Result: Even though wife retains custody, the strain of defending against bullshit over custody causes collapse of her second marriage. No sanction is ever enforced against FBI prick for private, off-the-books misuse of government database, not even a letter of reprimand in his service jacket.

      Moral: Have your own FBI prick check out potential mates to see if they have other FBI pricks as friends.

  11. There is a workaround though. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    It's a legal "grey area" known as "tag applied for".

    Want to be anonymous going someplace for the day? just get a random piece of cardboard, write a date about 3 weeks from now, and replace your plate with it.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:There is a workaround though. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      So it's not a major feat to
      a) alter the law to disallow this, or
      b) mix in some RFID gadget at application time
      so that they can bust you for a "false official statement" (since outlawing simple lying would put too many politicians in jeopardy).

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:There is a workaround though. by Koby77 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a legal "grey area" known as "tag applied for".

      Want to be anonymous going someplace for the day? just get a random piece of cardboard, write a date about 3 weeks from now, and replace your plate with it.

      My friend tried this a few years back when his temporary tag got destroyed by a really bad rainstorm. He posted all the same information as on his temp tag on the cardboard. I rode with him as a passenger to see what would happen. We got pulled over by a group of 5 cop cars after 10 minutes, like we were some sort of terrorists. They let us go because everything was legit, but have no illusions that you will certainly attract MORE scrutiny, and LESS anonymity.

    3. Re:There is a workaround though. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Maybe in PA that might be legal. Anywhere else and you've added all sorts of problems to the case.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:There is a workaround though. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Most states I've been to have DMV issued temporary identifiers, making your own is a 100% effective way to tell officer "this car is not legal".

    5. Re:There is a workaround though. by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 1

      Want to be anonymous going someplace for the day? just get a random piece of cardboard, write a date about 3 weeks from now, and replace your plate with it.

      In what state is this allowed? In all the states I have lived in, you can either get the tag the day you apply for one or they give you a thirty day temporary tag.

      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    6. Re:There is a workaround though. by tighr · · Score: 1

      I recently purchased a brand new motorcycle in California, and was not given any sort of temporary tag. All I got from the stealer was the slip of paper that says tags had been applied for, but nothing to mount on the motorcycle. I received my plates in the mail 30 days later. Never got pulled over, though...

    7. Re:There is a workaround though. by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Over here (Denmark) you have to buy a temporary license plate.

      And you may only use it to drive to and from your mechanic and the "car inspection" (private government bureau).

    8. Re:There is a workaround though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of inefficient rubbish is this? Over here, you can get a proper plate within an hour. Just show up with the proper paperwork (proof of ownership, insurance, proof that the car is technically OK), and you'll get your plates immediately. What kind of retarded beaurocrats are there that are so slow that you can drive around 3 weeks without plates?

    9. Re:There is a workaround though. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      What kind of retarded beaurocrats are there that are so slow that you can drive around 3 weeks without plates?

      the typical kind.

        I can go to the car dealer buy the car, pay the taxes, show the insurance, and they send in the paperwork and give me a temporary tag. The real tag shows up in a week or so in the mail, longer if they are busy. Getting the real tag is a lower priority than getting the vehicle insured and registered and the taxes and fees collected. If I go to Canada and buy a car there and import it back to the US things are a bit more complicated but not much, and there are some taxes you can avoid one time, especially if the car was built in the US but sold in Canada.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    10. Re:There is a workaround though. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Here in Alabama, atleast in Montgomery, you don't need any other information on the temp tag than the words "Tag Applied for." I can't tell you how often I see cars driving around with a sheet of notebook paper in the rear window with that on it. I work on a Military installation where you have to show proof of registration and insurance or a military ID card at the gate to come on. There is always a number of cars parked just outside the gate driven by people that don't have registration or insurance and have to walk on.

  12. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    License plate frame with tons of IR LEDs. Then the cameras are rendered useless. Of course that's likely to get you attention as well.

    1. Re:Solution by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Or just mount the plate on a surface that vibrates enough while the car is in motion to defeat the camera?
      Car stops, plate is stable, no problem.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  13. Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They are the size of softballs, cost $25K

    So for just 3 or 4 of these "softballs" we can pay the salary for a police officer on the streets. That sounds really efficient.

    Ohhh, but let's be FAIR. How more effectively does this allow a police officer to play traffic cop?

    Initially purchased to find stolen cars

    Well, I got to admit it. That sounds really nice. Cops don't have to pay attention to stolen car reports anymore in the squad car. Just listen for the ding-ding-ding of their information systems indicating that the car in the left hand lane is reported stolen.

    but also drivers who neglected or failed their emissions inspections or let their insurance policies lapse.

    Ummm, how? This presumes that the databases are updated to reflect this in the first place. With emissions it is entirely possible that the person DID get it corrected, but the database was not updated. This is awfully dependent on a LOT of systems operating properly. I am not even aware that this data IS being transmitted to the DMV from the shops.

    Insurance? They must be smoking something. I myself, along with TWO other people, have had letters sent from the DMV indicating that our insurance has been dropped by the insurance agency and that we must rectify it immediately. Problem is, they were DEAD WRONG. Not only did we all have proof of insurance in our vehicles, but we all had proof of payments to our respective companies during the period we were covered.

    Both of this situations is going to get pretty ugly on the road. It puts the officers in the position of *trusting* the data in their information systems against the drivers who will probably have documentation to the contrary at least 1/3 of the time. Maybe more, I don't know. My own personal experience and the experience of others would seem to indicate it could be higher.

    I just think it makes us a lot more effective and a lot more efficient in how our time is being used,' [a senior detective] said

    I'm sorry I just read that as, "We don't have to do our jobs anymore and we can also think a heck of a lot less. Having blind trust in the pretty lights in the car makes it really us for to concentrate on driving and eating donuts".

    Maybe that was not fair, but I see it as the same situation as the new rifles that can choose between lethal and non-lethal. It is taking too much responsibility away from the officers to apply their judgment. I want officers to think and interact with their environment personally. I strongly support more training and higher salaries too.

    The last thing we need is a bunch of dumbasses in uniforms running around with PDA's going, "Uhhhhhh, doh... the smart box says I got to take you in since you is a suspicious looking person or something. Are you going to resist? Hehe.. I have not hit anything with my stick in like 3 days so please resist".

    The District and Prince George's County use them to enforce parking rules

    Now this just sounds outright ludicrous. How can a traveling squad car with a softball that recognizes license plates determine what the hell a parked car is doing?. I don't think it can. The only thing I can think of is recording the dates, times, and positions that a car may be in to apply some sort of rules about how long a particular car can be there. I can POKE a hole in that RIGHT NOW. I park my car there for X amount of hours during which a squad car records that I am there during the time I am parked. I leave, thereby resetting whatever time limit there was, and come back X amount of time later. During my second stay a whole different squad car can record my position and time I was there. WHen applying the rules how do they: 1) Know exactly when I parked and when I left? 2) Know that if my car was there the

    1. Re:Concerning by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      In Virginia the emissions results are transmitted to DMV as soon as the testing is done, yes they know if you failed. Parking in the District is so bad that after a certain time only residents are allowed to be parked in certain areas - if they look up the tag and it's NOT for a resident then they know that the person is parked illegally.

      So yeah, they really are using them in this manner and in the District it's got to be a wet dream for them. They look for ANY way they can to make money including rigging red light cams! Yes, they have been caught at this. Frankly, this is prety frightening to me....

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    2. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      only residents are allowed to be parked in certain areas - if they look up the tag and it's NOT for a resident then

      My car breaks down and I borrow a friends. Heck, I am not driving my car for any one of thousands of reasons. They cite the car I am driving.

      I am clearly not guilty, nor is the owner of the car. How do we both go about challenging the ticket and proving our innocence?

      In Las Vegas, I had a parking ticket in which I even showed documents to an ignorant malcontent that the ticket was unwarranted for registration and she rudely refused to tear up the ticket. After dealing with the appropriate department they had the audacity to agree that I was innocent but not completely eliminate the fine. They still wanted 25$.

      My lawsuit with the city is now 4 YEARS old regarding this.

      This will just be a revenue stream for them. The administration is banking on the fact that not everybody is like me. A person that will actually die before paying a fine for something I am innocent of. Wait, PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT to be innocent of. Most people will just accept the gentle butt raping by the government.

      This country was founded partly in response to taxation without representation. Well I don't know what the hell to call this, but it's far worse.

    3. Re:Concerning by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Salary and benefits in Houston are up to about 110k. And the pensions are murder.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Concerning by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the District here. There have been NUMEROUS articles written in the Washington Post over the years about just how bad it is to try and fight a ticket down there. I am quite sure that it will not be much better for this kind of thing and it wouldn't surprise me if even innocent motorists were asked to pay a processing fee for having used some of their time while fighting this. That is a city that is BADLY strapped for cash and they are doing everything they can think of, to include trying to figure out how to tax out of city motorists for going into the city, to get revenue. They do NOT see the big picture and are as corrupt as they can get - I avoid the city at ALL costs as a result, it's a cesspool. This technology bodes no good for the citizens or the visitors...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    5. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem paying police officers good salaries. I just want them very well trained, educated, and equipped.

      My real worry about this that somehow it will "dumb down" the officers out there and make them less reliant on their own judgment. Officers SHOULD NOT BE FUCKING TRAFFIC COPS. Excuse me for language, but officers need to be handling different tasks in the community. Sadly I see them becoming glorified tax collectors.

      My own grandfather refused to hand out too many tickets in the 50's and 60's. He said to hell with the quota systems since he felt like they WERE making him into a revenue stream. I agree with him.

    6. Re:Concerning by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Plus, these cameras should last more than a year.

    7. Re:Concerning by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Officers SHOULD NOT BE FUCKING TRAFFIC COPS.

      What if the traffic cop is cute?

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    8. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Ohh. Well that is an exception obviously. Carry on.

    9. Re:Concerning by socsoc · · Score: 1

      You are guilty. In my city various street parking areas require permits, if the car doesn't have the permit it can only park for 2 hours. I don't see how parking enforcement is supposed to know why you don't have a sticker in the window. The residents also get a couple rearview hang-tag permits for guests too, that helps eliminate the need to hire psychics.

    10. Re:Concerning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I got to admit it. That sounds really nice. Cops don't have to pay attention to stolen car reports anymore in the squad car. Just listen for the ding-ding-ding of their information systems indicating that the car in the left hand lane is reported stolen.

      Do you have any idea how many cars are stolen? It is impossible for a cop to remember them all.

      Now this just sounds outright ludicrous. How can a traveling squad car with a softball that recognizes license plates determine what the hell a parked car is doing?.

      In many jurisdictions (including where I live) street parking is reserved for local residents who get a permit & sticker that entitles them to park there at certain times. By tying the database of local resident plates with permits and the car's location by GPS, you can quickly tell if a car is parked illegally.

    11. Re:Concerning by graphicsguy · · Score: 1

      So for just 3 or 4 of these "softballs" we can pay the salary for a police officer on the streets. That sounds really efficient.

      Consider that the device might last more than a year.

    12. Re:Concerning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are a troll and not this mis-educated about law enforcement. But in the hopes of education, I'll try to answer some of your misgivings based on my indirect knowledge of watching way too many episodes of COPS, being in the police explorers, ad countless hours of listening to the police on scanners (I'm in a fire department family - a scanner is a given for us).

      1) Beat officers are getting around 50 - 65K a year - not the 75 - 100 you are thinking of. That's not a hell of a lot of money to get shot at and spit on.

      2) Each state (and country) handles insurance and emissions reporting differently. I am in California and if you drop your insurance you get a letter sent to you warning that you must have insurance of your registration will be suspended for that car. Same thing for emissions - you must submit a passing smog check every few years to get your registration. Other things that can flag your car would be driving on an expired registration or a PNO (Planed Non-Operation) - meaning you are not paying registration because because you don't plan on using that car.

      3) I think the article is misunderstanding how Parking Enforcement is done. Try to catch Parking Wars on TV sometime for some quick education. What I think they are looking for is parking violators who have not paid for PAST tickets. In the show they show a Boot Crew going about their daily rounds - they hop into a van and drive around an area slowly - one drives and the other types in by hand each parked car's license plate looking for people with unpaid parking tickets and booting their car. Now think how much faster this can go with that second person put into a second van and both vans equipped with these devices.

      4) You are worried about police officers getting a PDA or computer in their car so they can be lazy, listen to the smart box, and hit things with 'sticks'. But you forget the other side of that where a cop may be looking for a stolen car and thinks YOU are the thief. Without this device He'll probably manually check your plate, or pull you over for a 'check'. while the REAL stolen car drives past in the other direction. Like it or not - the efficiency is also bringing accuracy.

      5) Traffic stops catch lots of bad guys. Like it or not, there are a lot of bad guys in jail today who were pulled out of a car that was stopped for a simple violation, and then found to be drunk, carrying drugs, carrying guns, or having warrants out for them. More plate checks means that more seriously bad guys get caught.

      I hope this helps your misunderstandings (or those of another reader).

    13. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Okaaaay.

      I'm not guilty as far the discussion is concerned. In my hypothetical scenario there are no visible permits. If there was such an easy way for the police to determine if a vehicle was parked by a resident than why is scanning the license plates even necessary? To do so, would it not require a database of license plates to home addresses? Up to date preferably? In your situation, a one with visible permits, the scanning of license plates solves a problem that does not exist while raising serious concerns over privacy, anonymity, and freedom.

      Thank you for bringing up the 2 hour limit. It's impossible for scanners to accurately determine when a car parked or how long it has been there.

      Of course, if there were stationary on the building then it would be possible. However, once again, if that were true you don't need license plates to do that or to even determine the identity of the driver or owner of the car.

      The only thing a cop car can determine is when THEY see me parked and the DURATION between their next sighting of my car. That does not work legally, since I could have stopped by for an hour and been sighted, then left for 45 minutes with a resident for dinner, only to come back and have the same or other cop see me again in 20 minutes.

      Although the information systems in the cop cars may register that I have been there for just over 2 hours, the facts are different. All I have to do is mention that to a Judge and my case is thrown out. I bet I would not even have to show a receipt for dinner. A couple-dozen or a hundred of those cases and Judges start getting pissed off and make it clear to the state lawyers that they will not even see the cases anymore, just give summary judgment. The easiest way for a community to enforce time limits is parking meters. Nothing is clearer than a parking meter that is expired. Very hard to argue with. It is even excellent for the community in a corrupt way, since the point ceases to be how long is a car really there and becomes how much money does the street make.

      Now if you are talking about my own personal ticket in Las Vegas, then you are dead wrong about the guilty part. Although my tags, which are visible, were out of date, I was in fact in possession of current registration. The law only states that I must be registered. That is the spirit of the law, and the legal language supports it. You essentially get a fix-it ticket. It means that unless I provide proper proof of insurance/registration to the authorities that the charge will stand and I owe the fine. Unless.... I choose to fight it in court with a jury of my peers, which I am constitutionally allowed to do.

      The only reason my tags were out of date is because I did not receive them in the mail for over 2 months. The language of the law does not say that Nevadans are in violation of any law simply because they cannot visibly show proof of compliance at all times. If that were true, then there would have to be a mandatory disclaimer on the government website that states when purchasing registration to be careful not to drive until your tags arrive in the mail. Yeah... They don't have that anywhere. If you had to have possession of the tags to drive then any idiot could run around ripping tags off and then you could be stopped by a whole procession of cops down the road for every single foot you travel. Basically, you would have be towed to private property till the tags arrived in the mail. A completely ridiculous situation right?

      Part of the city of Las Vegas actually agrees with me on my innocence. It is the bureaucracy that is stubbornly stating that I still need to pay a reduced fee. Presumably since I used up their time. Not only is that unconstitutional, it's completely their fault. While the meter maid was writing my ticket, I actually showed her the printouts of the registration AND credit card receipts showing payment. I was not an idiot, I knew that to mitigate any possible situation I would need to have proof in my possessi

    14. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Well, I got to admit it. That sounds really nice. Cops don't have to pay attention to stolen car reports anymore in the squad car. Just listen for the ding-ding-ding of their information systems indicating that the car in the left hand lane is reported stolen.

      Do you have any idea how many cars are stolen? It is impossible for a cop to remember them all.

      Then put more cops out on the road. In the end I think we have to weigh the serious concerns over privacy, anonymity, and freedom against auto theft. There is a clear winner here, and it is not auto theft.

      Now this just sounds outright ludicrous. How can a traveling squad car with a softball that recognizes license plates determine what the hell a parked car is doing?.

      In many jurisdictions (including where I live) street parking is reserved for local residents who get a permit & sticker that entitles them to park there at certain times. By tying the database of local resident plates with permits and the car's location by GPS, you can quickly tell if a car is parked illegally.

      Ummm, okay. You seem to only be proving my point. The license plate reader itself does not know anything about a parked car. You would have to have a database of plates and permits. Once again, a balance needs to be struck between privacy, anonymity, and freedom and QUICKLY identifying people in violation of these parking laws. You already said there are permits and stickers. It may take the cops an extra 60 seconds cruising down the street to look for stickers and hanging permits. Are you really willing to let them travel down the street at higher speed while taking the serious blow against privacy and anonymity?

      I'm not.

    15. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Good point. Still seems kind of expensive to me even if it has a 5 year life expectancy. I would rather let the cop work a little harder and just give the cop the money. At least with the cop there is no database which shows where everybody was, is, and probably could be in the future.

      Knowing that much information about the public is a Nazi Fascist's dream to be sure. Now if you think that is just too much hyperbole, try imagining if the average German would of thought things could have gone as far as they did as quick as they did in World War II. I bet the average German in hindsight would have fought the Nazi's just a little bit harder instead of being complacent.

    16. Re:Concerning by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I hope you are a troll and not this mis-educated about law enforcement

      I'm not a troll and I am certainly not uneducated about law enforcement. I have family in law enforcement too. I am surprised you submitted your comments AC. Not really necessary. If you don't have a /. account, it makes sense though. Or if you just don't care about replies too :)

      1) Beat officers are getting around 50 - 65K a year - not the 75 - 100 you are thinking of. That's not a hell of a lot of money to get shot at and spit on.

      Well, I get different stories from different people. Another poster in this thread puts it at 75K to 100K. In any case, I think it should be more. There should be a greater investment for better educated and better paid police. Please understand, I am not saying that all police are uneducated now, just that we could give them even more training. Your "shot and spit on" remark kind of reminds of Vietnam. Sure, you could have serious problems with the war. However, even you state your position eloquently and passionately with a sincere attempt at productive discourse, your words get drowned out by shouts of "traitor" and "unpatriotic". On the other hand, Vietnam Vets were getting spit on when they came home. That was uncalled for too. Don't mistake my positions about technology and law enforcement as being blatantly against the police. I support them and I am grateful for the sacrifices they make. I just want a balance between their actions on our freedoms. Police officers, MORE THAN MOST, need to understand our laws and freedoms to PROTECT AND SERVE THE PUBLIC. I don't feel this technology is serving the public in the end.

      2) Each state (and country) handles insurance and emissions reporting differently. I am in California and if you drop your insurance you get a letter sent to you warning that you must have insurance of your registration will be suspended for that car. Same thing for emissions - you must submit a passing smog check every few years to get your registration. Other things that can flag your car would be driving on an expired registration or a PNO (Planed Non-Operation) - meaning you are not paying registration because because you don't plan on using that car.

      Databases could be wrong, and often are. I already gave a real world example of such a situation. Automatically scanning and "instructing" the cop to pull over people based on this information is a waste of time. You may catch a few people, and consequently increase revenues for the city, at the expense of the officers time. I still think that the number of people that will have documentation contrary to the database will be significant. It places officers in the position of trusting their equipment, which they have to, and just giving the ticket. For every person they do that too, it is one less person that respects the police, their systems, or the government in general. You should be able to rely on an officer that can use his/her judgment in any given situation and not just become a tool for city's finances.

      4) You are worried about police officers getting a PDA or computer in their car so they can be lazy, listen to the smart box, and hit things with 'sticks'. But you forget the other side of that where a cop may be looking for a stolen car and thinks YOU are the thief. Without this device He'll probably manually check your plate, or pull you over for a 'check'. while the REAL stolen car drives past in the other direction. Like it or not - the efficiency is also bringing accuracy.

      I'm not really sure what to make of this. You claim it will bring accuracy by reducing the mistakes of the officers. So will better trained and paid officers. This increased accuracy and efficiency has a high price tag. Why would the cop think I am the thief and let the other car go? No offense, that does not make much se

    17. Re:Concerning by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "WHen applying the rules how do they: 1) Know exactly when I parked and when I left? 2) Know that if my car was there the"

      Then you will have to surrender your GPS data to prove you did nothing wrong ;-)

  14. You know what's scary? by Adreno · · Score: 1, Troll

    What's scary, is that the general populace is able to get behind the wheel that controls hundreds or thousands of pounds of metal, and move it at a considerable speed around people, animals, and the like. Police supervision is not nearly as scary as this reality. If you're driving on any public road, anything visible is in the public domain, and the pavement under your tires is put there courtesy of the government and the collective taxes, so this is the furthest thing from scary for me. You should really expect to have your license plate scanned as soon as you hit pavement that isn't privately owned.

    1. Re:You know what's scary? by Adreno · · Score: 1

      however, I will admit that storage of such data (where you have been, and when) is another question entirely. If you're just scanning for immediate law-breakers, I have no qualm with that.

  15. 100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    100% enforcement of outrageous laws which were passed under the assumption they would be difficult to enforce would eventually lead to the repeal of said laws.

    A little pain now means a lot less later.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by zaax · · Score: 0

      At then end of the day it's down to how much can a computer store and process. ie how much money have you got. The USA checks all out going and incoming information, thats big processing. To read car plate number no problem.

    2. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. It is the laws that are the problem. No law should exist that you don't want enforced 100% of the time.

      Selective enforcement or lax enforcement encourage injustice and allow government power to grow quietly.

      If we had 100% enforcement, the majority would support freedom. Would-be tyrants are in the majority now -- they think it's cool to use government power against people they don't like to promote their tyrannical preferences.

    3. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If the burden becomes too great for society to bear, the enforcement can be scaled back - using a random number generator that takes skin color of perpetrator as the seed.

      Hopefully a balance can be reached between supply and demand of enforcement.

    4. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Why are governments passing laws that are unneeded, unenforceable, or which insult peoples' intelligence?

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

      I'm looking forward to that in the speed limit department. Particularly the possibilities for changing freeway speed limits determined by current traffic patterns, etc.

      Doesn't stop the data abuse problem though.

    6. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are governments passing laws... which insult peoples' intelligence?

      this one is because of civil claims..

      the "stupid" lawsuits which make it through, apparently because the judge cannot read, see, or hear.

      for example "mcdonalds made me fat" or "my kid is dead because the electrical appliance didn't have a warning label about bathtub immersion".

      that's the reason why the hammer at the store (literally in my area) has a warning which amounts to "if you hit yourself with this, you'll get hurt"

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    7. Re:100% enforcement would also prompt changes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% enforcement of outrageous laws which were passed under the assumption they would be difficult to enforce would eventually lead to the repeal of said laws.

      Yeah. That worked out real well with the war on drugs.

      Oh wait. The land of the brave, home of the free has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

  16. using them around my town by Neost · · Score: 1

    They've had them in operation here for a few months and supposedly have almost a zero percent success rate for catching any bad plates. Of course around here it is probably because they don't know how to use the damn things.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. I don't understand by AceofSpades19 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    whats so bad about this exactly?, people that do this stuff are breaking rules. I mean, catching people who failed emission tests is good for the environment and catching people without insurance is also a good thing. Its like where I live, people were mad when the cops had radar on the highway, and the people were saying its just a revenue generator, when speeding can kill people, and catching speeders stops people from getting killed. So can someone explain why this is so bad?

    1. Re:I don't understand by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Well, the issue with radar (especially photo radar, which doesn't stop people from speeding until after the fact) is that the prospect of generating revenue results in artificially low speed limits that don't do anything to prevent deaths (see autobahn). Ironically, people seem to drive just above the speed limit no matter what the weather conditions - when it would be safe to drive considerably faster in ideal conditions, and only a fraction of the speed in heavy rain/darkness/etc.

    2. Re:I don't understand by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Without probable cause, searches are illegal. Understandably, looking at a license plate could never be considered a search... but I think its somewhere between a search and an interogation. Basically, this system investigates every owner of every car license plate it sees. That's where its wrong... in that as citizens we have the Constitutional right to be secure in our lives without the tyranny of the state scrutizing the innocent, even if we are unaware of it. IANAL, but IMHO this system violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment, or at the very least makes it really easy to do so.

    3. Re:I don't understand by terryducks · · Score: 1

      here's .02 dollars to get a clue.

      emissions tests - what a joke. in Connecticut they used to have a system that was somewhat sane and measured actual tailpipe emissions. Guess what, the companies administering were a little corrupt. Now they "asked" the car's computer if it passes and if the check engine light is on - automatic failure. Not if your car falls outside of the range but a little light is on. (I've had the same failure under the old system - the emissions were still within range). On VWs there are 2 O2 sensors. THe 1st one is around $210, the second $177.

      The insurance stale data loop hole is described further up thread.

      There was a little township in Indiana that used the speeding loophole to fund the town.

      Why it's bad?

      Because it's always expanded for more revenue. Nothing ever goes down.

      EAT MY SHORTS.

    4. Re:I don't understand by riondluz · · Score: 0

      Speeding does not kill, loss of control kills; at any speed. Going fast(er) can just make it worse;
      but a motor vehicle can kill at 15MPH as easily as at 65MPH.

      Most people ignore speed limits. Cops ignore speed limits. Speed and safety are relative terms and
      ambigous (sp) at best. Most posted speed limits are generally lower to account for winter conditions.

      Most people who get cited for speeding are not the ones who have accidents;
        ergo, its a racket that taxes those who drive the most, commuters who know the roads they drive
        like the back of their hands. Its a scam that directly ties the points system into a money-maker for
      the insurance companies (dont get me started).

      >people that do this stuff are breaking rules.
      People who choose to speed are exercising their own judgement over that of the State. Whether they are
      correct in their assessment remains to be seen as to whether it results in injury or damages.
      You don't break any rules? How about the broken stop light at 2AM? when you're the only car in sight?
      Or the pedestrian sign saying 'do not cross' when there's nobody on the road but yourself and you
      could probably cross the street blindfolded and be safe?
      I would posit that if you never break any (of the ever-growing list of) rules, then you are letting
      the State do your thinking for you and you have joined the sheeple.

      --
      resist propaganda
    5. Re:I don't understand by riondluz · · Score: 0

      what this will do is provide probable cause, giving the cops authority to stop and detain.
      I'm sure that it will fail some arrests as being pre-textual if the stop results in something other
      than a motor vehicle citation. But its a way for the LEA camel to insert its nose into the tents
      of our lives another inch or two.
       

      --
      resist propaganda
  19. Bah... if Google did this... by Animaether · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...you'd see a metric shit-ton of comments pointing out that -eeeeeeeeeeverybody- can take pictures of, and store into database the information relevant to, your license plates... how your car is out in public and you have no expectation of privacy there.. blablabla. No.. if Google did this, it'd be all good*. Heck, if an insurance company gave everybody who cooperated with their employees tracking their license plates in exchange for a 5% discount (that is.. raise the rates for everybody else), the vast majority would go for it.
    ( * okay, granted, there were actually a few people who felt Google was in the wrong with that private road thing (pending court decision, was it?).. but then the sheer number of comments saying that they should have made it gated if they didn't want anybody trespassing.. errrrr. )

    But I'm not here to rant on the topic of Big Government vs Big Corporation.

    "They [...] cost $25K". So two of those could employ an additional actual flesh and blood cop. Or two depending on just how bad their pay is. I'd go for the two additional cops.

    Then again...
    "and can scan and run thousands of plates a day through the local Motor Vehicle Administration database."

    If that means they catch more people who break the law* and that ends up in a net positive exceeding the 25k (presumably a one-time purchase, but who am I kidding) by a healthy margin, maybe they could also afford an additional copper or two. If nothing else, they might not have to send rookies out to collect on some fine and put those rookies to work patrolling the streets instead, and seasoned cops don't have to waste time in their patrols doing 'quick' checks on plates in the area that seem out of place.
    ( * I understand some laws are unjust - so get 'm changed. Guess what.. everybody speeding 5mph hasn't upped the speed limits on a large scale officially.. unofficially officers probably don't care much as long as you go with the flow of traffic.. unless they're having a bad day or have to meet a quota. Sucks to be you when that is the case. )

    "The easy mission creep these devices encourage is summarized in the article"
    mission creep... well we all know what the mission is supposed to be (peace and safety and order and all that) and what the mission tends to be (revenue, statistics, making the mayor look good, blabla), but let's err on the side of the benign and try the next sentence...

    "Initially purchased to find stolen cars, a handful of so-called tag readers are in use across the Washington region to catch not just car thieves, but also drivers who neglected or failed their emissions inspections or let their insurance policies lapse."
    In other words... initially purchased to [help uphold the law], but [some now] also [help uphold the law] and [help uphold the law].
    Yeah, I can see how that is evil.

    I'm far more worried about explicit -and- implicit loss of privacy than the throwing of the "now the cops can tell, with near-zero effort, that I let my insurance lapse! It's not fair! *stomps feet*" tantrums. I hate the "I've got nothing to hide" argument, relevant to the privacy issue, but I hate it when people who know they broke the law and then get all huffy when they get caught by a machine rather than a human even more.

    Anyway - you want scary.. go to The Netherlands come 2012-2016. Apparently we are all to drive around with government-monitored GPS on-board by then. To have us pay road use taxes based on the hour of the day, which road it was, etc. I'm sure being able to track whoever they want from a Lay-Z Boy is just an added perk they'll reveal when the tech is entrenched in use and they've got a high profile case (a murderer, perhaps a pedophile, being arrested) to demonstrate that being able to track everybody is a Good Thing(TM). Ba-a-a-a-a, bleated the population, as their road use taxes were lowered ( not really - they're making up for it with a wide margin in the 'provincial tax'... which will apply to -all- citizens, not just those who actually drive cars.)
    But that, too, is another rant.

    1. Re:Bah... if Google did this... by BLKMGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this isn't scary you aren't using your imagination. Picture this, some dumbass blowhard gets it in their head that storing ALL of this data is a good idea. Why? Well because when some little kid gets snatched and everyone goes crazy looking for the guy who supposedly did it they can lookup where in the world this vehicle has been seen before in addition to having all of these devices look for the tag. Hey then one day someone with access decides they want to know where their wife goes while they are at work.... Keep going, maybe a politician wants to know where someone who opposes him goes. the list is ENDLESS. do not forget that while these devices are being advertised as being used on police cars there's NO REASON why they cannot also be used in fixed emplacements. Ponder that the next time you drive under an overpass, overhead street sign, or in my area red lights that have little cams pointed down next to them. Many cities now employ red light cameras, traffic cameras, and surveillance cameras - how hard to employ these too exactly?

      Watch this vid and be VERY afraid -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3ibjQjQQOQ

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    2. Re:Bah... if Google did this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nowadays, peeking in databases is even considered one of the perks of being a police officer...

    3. Re:Bah... if Google did this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google did this, then everyone would have access to the information. I'm quite happy for the police to do this if they abide by that condition.

    4. Re:Bah... if Google did this... by mxs · · Score: 1

      First off, nice rant :)

      ...you'd see a metric shit-ton of comments pointing out that -eeeeeeeeeeverybody- can take pictures of, and store into database the information relevant to, your license plates...

      There is a SLIGHT difference between Google and the police in that Google is a private company that does not have the right to shoot you, subdue you, imprison you, or make your life hell when they so deem fit. Google does not have the authority of the state.

      how your car is out in public and you have no expectation of privacy there.. blablabla. No.. if Google did this, it'd be all good*.

      No, it wouldn't be. And you are bending your argument just a LITTLE in your favour here. You are alluding to StreetView of course, which, for a time, had some license plates readable. Mind you, these were not actually made searchable nor OCRed upon nor is there time data available nor is data on it checked against other databases. This is quite a lot different from what these little softballs are doing, and YOU know it.

      Heck, if an insurance company gave everybody who cooperated with their employees tracking their license plates in exchange for a 5% discount (that is.. raise the rates for everybody else), the vast majority would go for it.

      Just as the vast majority of people will happily accept all of their buying habits etc. being tracked in exchange for "points", "rebates", etc.
      Of course the difference is that this is voluntary. You can choose not to participate.

      ( * okay, granted, there were actually a few people who felt Google was in the wrong with that private road thing (pending court decision, was it?).. but then the sheer number of comments saying that they should have made it gated if they didn't want anybody trespassing.. errrrr. )

      Oh, you are looking at the sheer number of, pardon my cussing, dumb fuckwads who do not think twice about what they are saying ? Welcome to anonymous internet discussion. Trolls are a-that-a-way.

      "They [...] cost $25K". So two of those could employ an additional actual flesh and blood cop. Or two depending on just how bad their pay is. I'd go for the two additional cops.

      Like, for instance, this oft-repeated point. No thought behind it. No, a cop does not just cost his salary (and mind you, this salary is YEARLY -- I have no idea what the lifespan of these devices is, but I do hope they are getting more than a year's worth out of them at that price); you also have to train said cop (that's freaking expensive), equip him (that's freaking expensive !), possibly get a car for him (holy shit that's expensive !), keep training them (again, expensive), pay insurance on them (not that expensive, but still significant), provide infrastructure for them within the organization (expensive !), etc.

      So no, one or two of these does not get you another flesh and blood cop. 6 or 7 might, but just for a year or so.

      If that means they catch more people who break the law* and that ends up in a net positive exceeding the 25k (presumably a one-time purchase, but who am I kidding) by a healthy margin, maybe they could also afford an additional copper or two. If nothing else, they might not have to send rookies out to collect on some fine and put those rookies to work patrolling the streets instead, and seasoned cops don't have to waste time in their patrols doing 'quick' checks on plates in the area that seem out of place.

      You know when something went wrong when law enforcement becomes something about profit margins. This is a very, very dangerous road to take. When a cop doesn't just have to weigh the situation, but also next year's budget for donuts (sorry cops, that one was just too easy ;), they might be more inclined to fine you for a trumped-up, non-provable charge. Or fine you more for a lesser infraction. O

    5. Re:Bah... if Google did this... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Well? What's so special about that video? The only thing scary about it is the end. They seem to get the license plates of not only cars, but also of Olympic games, unidentified city blocks and of course the omnipresent stolen planes flying into two uninsured towers. Those kind of endings are the things that scare the shit out of me.

  20. Don't get too paranoid over this, Dale Gribble... by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    I work for an outfit in Texas that installs these systems into patrol cars. It's hard enough to get a current database for these systems to compare the OCR'd license plates against. They currently have no ability to correlate all scanned plates with GPS coordinates and it would take a substantial development effort to put such a monster together anyway. All they do is compare OCR'ed plate numbers against a pre-determined database of already known stolen or wanted tag numbers and the systems as they exist today can barely accomplish that task with enough accuracy to be worthwhile to install at all.

  21. When and where by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    Every single police scanner would be scanning tons and tons plates every few seconds. You're talking about combining that with GPS data, and then also cross-referencing that with other relevant data of what exists in that geography, and then people monitoring that find something relevant?

    It seems like quite a bit to store, monitor, etc. Having run a security company and dealt with police forces, often they are under-budgeted and under-manned. I just don't seem something like that happening any time soon.

    Someday perhaps, but not today.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:When and where by pentalive · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they could autoticket speeders:

      Police Cruizer A notices you at 5th and A Street at 7:30. Curuzer B reports you at 10th and C Street at 7:37 - But the points are so far apart that you would have had to have speeded to get from one to the other in 7 minutes.

    2. Re:When and where by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      In this case, you either prohibit something, or you allow it. Unfortunately, we have gotten into the habit of writing laws and interpreting them so that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, then it is allowed. I don't care if they can't do it now. I'd rather they just can't do it because they aren't allowed to.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    3. Re:When and where by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Police Cruizer A notices you at 5th and A Street at 7:30. Curuzer B reports you at 10th and C Street at 7:37 - But the points are so far apart that you would have had to have speeded to get from one to the other in 7 minutes.

      Come to Britain. There are a few thousand cars driving around with forged license plates. And people doing this don't take a random number, they look for a car that looks identical to theirs and copy the number plate. Now if that Cruizer B reported you at 7.32 - far enough away that you would have to travel at > 200 mph, then it would be an excellent idea to stop both cars. (Note: This doesn't actually happen. And having your license plate cloned is a lot, lot of trouble. )

    4. Re:When and where by pentalive · · Score: 1

      yeah, since the cops don't know the plate is cloned they should find and stop both cars. Once they determine that the plate is cloned the original gets a new free plate, the cloner gets the slammer.

  22. Suppose the DHS decides? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Umm they decided that when they were first formed.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  23. Virtual Papers by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't much different then demanding one's papers on the street randomly, 'just to check you out', even when you are just minding your own business.

    This is 'presumed guilty' at its finest.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Virtual Papers by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      This isn't much different then demanding one's papers on the street randomly, 'just to check you out', even when you are just minding your own business.

      Not at all.

      It's really only just like reading people's name tags at a convention.

    2. Re:Virtual Papers by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you, if it wasn't the government that was doing it.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  24. who says by no-body · · Score: 1

    Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?
    That this is not already happening and cannot be disclosed in the interest of national security to fight terrorism?

    nana nana nana - I hear you...

    And - if you are not in support of this happening well... you are a terrorist!


    Quite a trap!

  25. The Size of Softballs.... by LameAssTheMity · · Score: 2, Funny

    They are the size of softballs

    I'm just gonna start walking around with a baseball bat "defending our civil liberties."

    1. Re:The Size of Softballs.... by LameAssTheMity · · Score: 1

      In fact, I'm in full support of this idea now!

      Those cameras posted on telephone lines are SO hard to knock out!

  26. If this wasn't Slashdot I would be supprised.... by Valcrus · · Score: 0, Troll

    that there were so many paranoid people out there. I don't know how I feel about the emission checks so much but for lapsed insurance I'm completely fine with that. The last thing I need is someone running a light and hitting me then not having any insurance. As for the tracking where you have been you can look at it this way if they wanted to they could just track you with satellites or your cell phone if they really wanted to. Heck who is to say they aren't looking at a screen full of that stuff right now. Heck you know your cable companies can track what shows your watch if they feel like it. Its not worth it at the moment but who is to say that someday it won't be done.

  27. A critical distinction by linuxwrangler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To me there is a critical distinction between two scenarios.

    In the first instance, the device has an on-board list of suspect plates (stolen, warrants, etc.) and alerts the officer when one is detected. Officers have lists of local stolen cars and routinely run plates of vehicles "of interest" anyway. In this use, the device would not be used to store any observed plates - it only alerts an officer of the presence of a plate already associated with a violation of the law.

    In one respect, this reduces bias. An officer can't run every plate he/she sees so there is always some conscious or sub-conscious profiling going on. My guess is that plates of cars driven by young black males are run far more often than those of middle-aged white females with a kid in the back seat. An automatic plate scanner doesn't care.

    And personally, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are "merely" uninsured or belching smog. I want those drivers off the road. Now.

    There was a recent crash on the corner by my house - flipped a small SUV over onto the sidewalk where I often walk with my daughter. In that case, the driver had expired registration due to lack of insurance, had actually been pulled over 5-minutes prior to the accident, but was unfortunately let off with a warning and, now running late to work, blew a stop sign causing the accident.

    In the second instance, the devices are installed on vehicles or near roadways and store all plates and a timestamp of when they passed. This type of tracking should be outlawed and if employeed despite being illegal, should not be admissable as evidence in any civil or criminal proceding.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:A critical distinction by ashooner · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that distinction will most likely evaporate in a few years, along with the rest of localized data storage. Not to say this wouldn't be technically possible, but I'd bet that logs of all plates will be kept, in order to aid in the future prosecution of crime that might happening. I doubt that will be legislated against.

      --
      They Are Night Zombies!! They Are Neighbors!! They Have Come Back from the Dead!! Ahhhh!
    2. Re:A critical distinction by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Someone mod this up!

      The problem here is a record is being created where there was none before.

  28. Beyond Tracking Violators by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like the article said: What happens when this system is expanded to track people's legal movements? Put up enough of these cameras and one can track all vehicles moving into/out of various sectors of a city. Look at London.

    What scares the hell out of me is how readily our government will sell this data to private concerns. Anything to boost revenue. What happens if your competitor pays the local police department to place a camera in front of your businesses parking lot and generate a customer list? Your health insurance provider can get a list of people who frequent bars. A foreign government can get a list of all the cars parked at a defense contractor. There are many ways this information could be abused.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Beyond Tracking Violators by pentalive · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Supermarket A" did this to "Supermarket B" a few years ago, sent someone over to write down all the plate numbers in the lot, then sent all the people "Supermarket A" fliers and coupons.

      (Names have been changes because I don't remember who Supermarket A or Supermarket B actually were)

    2. Re:Beyond Tracking Violators by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      What scares the hell out of me is how readily our government will sell this data to private concerns. Anything to boost revenue.

      So, stop voting for politicans who only want to lower taxes. Make sure the government will be sufficiently financed by proper taxation and it won't happen.

    3. Re:Beyond Tracking Violators by maxume · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The government will get used to spending any and all money that it can get its hands on.

      I have a notion that a particular level of government should base its spending on one, and only one, tax, and then use the income from regulatory taxes to pay a rebate on the base tax (I'm okay with states using a sales tax and the feds using a income tax or whatever). Spending has to come out of the base tax. Shortfalls would be paid for by increases in the base tax. That way, people would have a slightly greater chance of being offended by stupid government spending, and regulations would have a greater chance of being written to actually regulate, rather than for income.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  29. Re:Don't get too paranoid over this, Dale Gribble. by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    Which system? ALPR? They are apparently claiming to gather tags but supposedly not keep them in articles I've seen. Getting GPS data at the same time as they do an OCR would be child's play - ask anyone who wardrives! That they don't have a good supporting database is something that time and money WILL fix so I'm not betting on something like that preserving my privacy for long. The OCR capabilities of these things will only get better and they will begin modifying tags to increase accuracy too - just as they have ALREADY passed laws in Texas to allow easier recognition by banning vanity plate covers. It's nice to know these aren't working out too well for your guys but I would NOT bet on that remaining the case once they begin to figure out just how powerful this technology could be. Police want to track everyone and everything unless it's themselves (thin blue line anyone?) so no I wouldn't trust this technology in their hands.

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  30. And.... by Siberwulf · · Score: 0, Troll

    Maybe I'm myopic. Maybe my tinfoil hat fell off a little while ago. Maybe its because I have a brand new 7 month old.

    I honestly don't see a problem. For the law abiding citizen there are *tons* of benefits for this.

    1. Living in Texas (and yes, I like it here, even though it was 105 today) there are more than a fair share of illegal immigrants on our roadways. Many of them downright suck at driving. Most of them don't have insurance. Put those three factors together and when someone gets hit by one driving a big van full of paint supplies, your car is going to get wrecked. Your insurance is going to jump, and pretty soon insurance overall is going to jump, due to the high number of uninsured motorist claims. Don't start the "well look at your slippery slope" as I have personally been a witness to five of these in the past year.

    2. Being a new father and looking down at my son every night, I would hate to think if he were ever abducted. If he were, and these systems were on every single cop car, (or even traffic light for that matter), it would be hard pressed for that person to get anywhere without his whereabouts being known (under the assumption the police knew his plate number). It might be a long shot, but its still more than exists right now.

    3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there. I have my insurance, I have my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good to go.

    And for the real thick tinfoil hat folks, don't you dare compare this to wiretapping. Your location in a public place is no way comparable to a phone conversation held in the private of your own home.

    Tell me different if you think so.

    1. Re:And.... by gavron · · Score: 1
      > 2. Being a new father

      The common excuse of "new parents" is to lower speed limits, and impose restrictions on everyone else because they are unfit to parent without "safety-izing" the rest of the world.

      Grow up. Just because you are a "new father" doesn't give you any rights to remove my rights. It means you have more RESPONSIBILITIES. Try to live up to them.

      > 3. What do I have to hide?

      You have your ignorance to hide. This country wasn't founded on "I have nothing to hide so come live in my home and search it while you're at it." It was founded on being left alone by our government.

      > I have my insurance. I have my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good to go.

      Well leave already. Your "paperz are cleerly een order."

      > Tell me different[sic] if you think so.

      I've just done so.

      Ehud

    2. Re:And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (...) there are more than a fair share of illegal immigrants on our roadways. Many of them downright suck at driving. Most of them don't have insurance. Put those three factors together and when someone gets hit by one driving a big van full of paint supplies, your car is going to get wrecked (...) I have personally been a witness to five of these in the past year.

      Five different illegal immigrants, bad drivers without insurance, who each hit a van full of paint ?
      You should definitely stop hiring foreign exchange students in your paint factory...

    3. Re:And.... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1, Troll

      1) Illegal aliens are ruining the country.
      2) Think of the children.
      3) If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.

      Congratulations, you're an American stereotype.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    4. Re:And.... by Siberwulf · · Score: 1

      This country wasn't founded on "I have nothing to hide so come live in my home and search it while you're at it." It was founded on being left alone by our government.

      In no way, shape, or form am I advocating violation of privacy. The fact that you are in a public place with no preconception of your current location being private data kinda throws your argument out the window here. Again, if you read my post, you'd notice I don't condone stuff like wiretapping, et al, since they are violations of PRIVACY.

    5. Re:And.... by Siberwulf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Congrats to yourself, you're someone who lives north of Kansas, doesn't have kids, and is great at generalizing.

    6. Re:And.... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't see a problem. For the law abiding citizen there are *tons* of benefits for this.

      You're a law abiding citizen, right up until the point that you aren't.
      Then all those benefits hit you like a ton of bricks.

      3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there. I have my insurance, I have my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good to go.

      And for the real thick tinfoil hat folks, don't you dare compare this to wiretapping. Your location in a public place is no way comparable to a phone conversation held in the private of your own home.

      This argument is played out beyond belief.
      Seriously, stop it already.

      It doesn't matter what I have to hide.
      It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide.
      Without probable cause, the government should leave me alone.
      That includes public spaces, private spaces, and my internet/telephone connection.

      P.S. If you know anyone who has had a stalker, you'd already have the answer to "What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there."

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:And.... by ashooner · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with ehud, and siberwolf said the magic words : "What do I have to hide" that distinguishes him as not being on the same page with most of /. viz. privacy. But a good point he makes is that location in a public place being fair game. I think this is the sticking point, because while that's currently true, the implications of all this technology will amount to a much greater threat to personal liberty on behalf of government. And the abduction argument is just straight-up "Security > Privacy".

      --
      They Are Night Zombies!! They Are Neighbors!! They Have Come Back from the Dead!! Ahhhh!
    8. Re:And.... by winwar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there. I have my insurance, I have my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good to go."

      Really? So could you poste your name, SSN, address, where you work, your salary, your mother's maiden name, etc? Everybody has something to hide. Or at least doesn't want someone to know.

      If they know where go and how you get there, they can now write you a ticket. But you say you never break any laws?

      "For the law abiding citizen there are *tons* of benefits for this."

      Well if a cop tracks you long enough or follows you long enough, you will break a law-this has been stated by cops. Nobody is a law abiding citizen. There are too many laws.

      There are potential benefits. And a lot of negatives.

    9. Re:And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go,
      >or how I get there. I have my insurance, I have
      >my registration, I have my inspection. I'm good
      >to go.

      I agree with you.

      What people don't seem to understand is that the amount of data involved in tracking people in general would be a real PITA. Does anyone really thing the US Government can pull off such a task? They can't even find contaminated tomatoes.

      You might as well track people by their cell phone usage. And they do. Or they might track a vehicle by its toll tag. And they do.

      If you're out and about, expect that you might be scrutinized. As long as it isn't interfering with your day unjustly, you really don't have much to complain about. If such a system did start creating a lot of false alarms, police likely would ignore it unless it was serious, or if judge declares that a car can't be pulled over for trivial infractions. Heck, in Texas they can and do just mail you a toll based on a photograph taken at a toll station.

    10. Re:And.... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Well leave already. Your "paperz are cleerly een order."

      Excuse me, a Mr Godwin would like a word with you.

    11. Re:And.... by gavron · · Score: 1
      Mike knows how to reach me. I'm not the problem.

      Giving up your freedom because "My papers are in order" and "I have nothing to hide" is unAmerican.

      E

    12. Re:And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of the children! I've got nothing to hide!

      Not that I necessarily disagree. Provided they don't go all big brother with this (which they probably will) I don't really see what the problem is.

    13. Re:And.... by Datamonstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in Texas, too, and I can personally say that know a number of people who are NOT here illegally that don't have insurance and quite a few that are here illegally and DO have it. You happen to know of five instances. Well, I'm sure someone knows 6 instances that prove otherwise. Or 7, or 8. What does that matter? Snapping a picture of everyone's plates is NOT the way to fix a broken insurance system.

      New father here, too. And I would hate to think that when he eventually starts driving that he could be possibly be added to a database for doing nothing wrong at all. I don't want him to get abducted, either, but again, what does that have to do with this camera system? The cameras won't prevent abductions from occurring, nor would they magically yield the abductor's plates or insure that he wasn't using alternate means of transportation.

      I too have nothing to hide, but I've a hell of a lot that I don't want people to know about me, I'm not going to hide any of it and I'll be damned if I let someone try to force me to give up information that I don't need or want to make known.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    14. Re:And.... by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between being simply caught out in public and a party having the ability to systematically track and scan for your presence.

      If I decide go out to a strip club and have myself a good ole yee-haw time without telling my wife and I happen to get seen by one of her friends exiting the club, well that's too bad. It's the luck of the draw that I got myself caught. However, having access to a database that can reveal every recorded instance of me in that area during a given period of time is a different matter altogether. In the wrong hands, or directed at the wrong person, it can do serious damage that otherwise might have remained private.

      Take for instance the same scenario described above, but instead of happening to me, it happens to an elected official. Instead of an angry wife, the information is leaked to a story-hungry news reporter. Or worse yet, SOLD to a rival running to be elected to the same office. Doesn't have to be a topless bar, but even though going to one isn't illegal, it sure can damage a public person's reputation. And while those examples might seem arbitrary and made-up, they are just as arbitrary and made-up as the claims that surveillance actually prevents certain crimes from being committed.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    15. Re:And.... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Giving up your freedom because "My papers are in order" and "I have nothing to hide" is unAmerican.

      :)

      I wonder how much of the disagreement that goes on on Slashdot about this issue is really differences in belief or is just a communication mismatch...

      I wonder how many people fit into each of the following:
      1. Those that don't want number plates on cars at all and want to be completely unaccountable on the roads
      2. Those that are happy to have number plates on cars but don't want an automatic system that searches a database for matches of known and wanted persons (make the cops do their jobs!)
      3. Those that would be happy to have the system mentioned above if there was an absolute assurance that there would be no 'slippery slope', knowing of course that such an assurance is impossible. This is probably just a special case of #2
      4. Those that are happy to have the system mentioned above without any disclaimers
      5. Those that would be quite happy to have gps implants in their heads that track and log everywhere they go.

      #1 would argue with everyone else and chastise them for giving away their freedoms, except that they'd probably never post on Slashdot anyway for fear that someone might find them.
      #2 mostly peacefully coexist with #3
      #3 and #4 argue about the existence of the 'slippery slope'
      #5 argue with everyone else along the lines of 'if you have nothing to hide then why is there a problem'

      I sometimes wonder if there isn't a criminal organization somewhere that every time a new technology comes out that will make it harder for them to get away with stuff they unleash a new wave of 'taking away our freedoms' FUD. I don't really believe it but it gives me a giggle to think about it :)

      I also wonder if an argument on Slashdot has ever succeeding in actually changing someone's mind... It's all fun to watch though isn't it!

    16. Re:And.... by gavron · · Score: 1

      :)

      I wonder how much of the disagreement that goes on on Slashdot about this issue is really differences in belief or is just a communication mismatch...

      I wonder how many people fit into each of the following: 1. Those that don't want number plates on cars at all and want to be completely unaccountable on the roads 2. Those that are happy to have number plates on cars but don't want an automatic system that searches a database for matches of known and wanted persons (make the cops do their jobs!) 3. Those that would be happy to have the system mentioned above if there was an absolute assurance that there would be no 'slippery slope', knowing of course that such an assurance is impossible. This is probably just a special case of #2 4. Those that are happy to have the system mentioned above without any disclaimers 5. Those that would be quite happy to have gps implants in their heads that track and log everywhere they go.

      #1 would argue with everyone else and chastise them for giving away their freedoms, except that they'd probably never post on Slashdot anyway for fear that someone might find them. #2 mostly peacefully coexist with #3 #3 and #4 argue about the existence of the 'slippery slope' #5 argue with everyone else along the lines of 'if you have nothing to hide then why is there a problem'

      I sometimes wonder if there isn't a criminal organization somewhere that every time a new technology comes out that will make it harder for them to get away with stuff they unleash a new wave of 'taking away our freedoms' FUD. I don't really believe it but it gives me a giggle to think about it :)

      I also wonder if an argument on Slashdot has ever succeeding in actually changing someone's mind... It's all fun to watch though isn't it!

      Quoted for emphasis. You are right on target! (The irony is fun too :)

      E

    17. Re:And.... by jagdish · · Score: 1

      Being a new father and looking down at my son every night, I would hate to think if he were ever abducted.

      Yes, Think of the Children. Although you are genuinely concerned about your child, tracking plates will not help in anyway.

      Assuming that the police will know the number plate is a pretty big assumption. And, if the thief knew that he was being tracked, he would definitely take steps to avoid detection.

      I agree with you on your 1st point, but your 2nd and 3rd points are baseless.

  31. Uh...No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get not reading the article, the editors here do that all the time...but if you are going to make a reference to a movie Like Minority Report you should have at least seen and/or understood what the movie was about before comparing it to the cameras. By the way, ask anyone that has been hit be some uninsured motorist how they feel about it, especially if they have a high deductible.

  32. CAPTCHA by Lank · · Score: 2, Funny

    All in favor of CAPTCHA license plates raise your hands...

    --
    Gotta get me one of these!
  33. Re:Don't get too paranoid over this, Dale Gribble. by phatlipmojo · · Score: 1

    I don't know who you're talking to. My name is Shackleford; Rusty Shackleford.

    --

    Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
  34. Erosion by moteyalpha · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem is not that it might make it easier to enforce laws and protect rights of those who abide by the rules, it creeps to the point where a government can control dissent in the matters where they become corrupt and need to be disposed of. At the point when they have absolute control of the criminals, they have absolute control of those who might oppose a dictatorship or military coup. If you give somebody the right to stick their hand up your a** every time you go to the airport, don't be surprised what goes up there next.

  35. The history of the license plate by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
    The real mission creep isn't these cameras. It is the license plates themselves. License plates should never have been designed. Their only purpose was to be a loophole for "unreasonable searches" since they are in public view
    .

    The history of the license plate:

    In The Hound of the Baskervilles [1902] by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are found unsuccessfully trying to catch a public hansom cab. Holmes, however, got close enough to the cab to spot its license number, which became a major clue in cracking the case.

    This is the reality:

    Deputy charged in assault on prostitute, [Aug 1], Mom pleads for daughter's safe return [Aug 1], Police say Sciota man tried to burn bar

    You will find stories like these in every newspaper published in the last 100 years.

    The license plate is not going to go away and it will be read by the neighborhood watch and the highway patrolman.

    The policeman is first and last the successor to the watchman in the night. He needs to know who is out there. He needs to move quickly sometimes.

    Now back to our story:

    New York became the first state to require vehicle registration [1901] and California followed suit later that year. The first New York issues were homemade plates, bearing the initials of the owner without any numbers. Massachusetts was the first state to actually issue plates, beginning in 1903. By 1918, all 48 of the contiguous United States were issuing license plate. Although they were territories at the time, Alaska and Hawaii began issuing plates in 1921 and 1922.

    License plates have changed significantly over the years. Early plates were not fancy -- just the state name or abbreviation, a registration number, and, more often than not, the year. Fancy lettering, reflectorization, slogans, county names, illustrations or logos peculiar to a particular state became more common.

    Beginning in 1957, most types of North American plates have been a standard size, six by twelve inches. Prior to that, different sizes and shapes were not uncommon. Plates were normally rectangular, but oval, square, round, and triangular shapes were used. For a number of years, Kansas and Tennessee cut their plates to match the shaped of the state itself. The distinction for the most unusually shaped plates goes to Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Canada, which have their plates cut in the shape of a bear. Automobile License Plate Buying Guide

    1. Re:The history of the license plate by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The history of the license plate:

      In The Hound of the Baskervilles [1902] by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,

      Ok, what's your point? That's a story of fiction. You aren't trying to argue that a fictional story was somehow the impetus for license plates, are you?

      The first guy said they were pushed as a tool to circumvent 4th Amendment issues, making law enforcement easier at the expense of constitutional freedoms. You cite a fictional story and then a bunch of modern news stories where license plates have played a part in solving the crime - but so what? That's the guy's point - they make law enforcements job easier by sacrificing our freedom, this theme is very common in any modern society.

      The policeman is first and last the successor to the watchman in the night. He needs to know who is out there. He needs to move quickly sometimes.

      Well, points for being poetic, but no points for disputing how license tags are not an abrogation of the 4th amendment.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:The history of the license plate by westlake · · Score: 1
      Ok, what's your point? That's a story of fiction. You aren't trying to argue that a fictional story was somehow the impetus for license plates, are you?
      .

      The The Hound of the Baskervilles is written as a memoir of events which happened twenty years before. Writing in 1901, Conan Doyle didn't have to explain what a license plate was or what use a detective could make it --- nor would anyone reading the serialized story or novel have found the use of a license plate as a clue in any way anachronistic.

      Well, points for being poetic, but no points for disputing how license tags are not an abrogation of the 4th amendment.

      In 1738 Benjamin Franklin began a campaign to reform and - in a sense - to professionalize the night watch in Philadelphia. The Life of Benjamin Franklin

      In the colonial era any notion you might have had that you could use the public roads anonymously would have been dispelled very quickly.

      Societies forged on the frontiers of civilization simply don't think that way.

    3. Re:The history of the license plate by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Conan Doyle didn't have to explain what a license plate was or what use a detective could make it

      No duh - you are SUPPORTING the OP's premise. Its obvious that license plates are a mechanism to violate the 4th amendment to fricking EVERYBODY, that's why he didn't have to explain what use a detective would make of it.

      In 1738 Benjamin Franklin began a campaign to reform and - in a sense - to professionalize the night watch in Philadelphia. The Life of Benjamin Franklin

      In the colonial era any notion you might have had that you could use the public roads anonymously would have been dispelled very quickly.

      Societies forged on the frontiers of civilization simply don't think that way.

      So horses had plates too, eh? Are you familiar with the phrase, "Papers, please!"

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  36. Place this in context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have an acting Attorney General Peter Nickles http://occ.dc.gov/occ/cwp/view,a,3,q,638711.asp

    He is considered one of the few trusted insiders our new mayor Adrian Fenty consults with. He will soon come up for appointment as the Attorney General. One of the questions facing the people in this city is whether or not his permanent appointment should be opposed. For example, we now have a new policy of stopping cars in high crime areas and turning people away who cannot show cause for why they want to enter an area. This is very troubling to people who are concerned with civil liberties. After all, we are not Baghdad or a nation where you are required to present your papers to travel. But this seems to be fine with the Fenty administration. It is probably Peter Nickles who is advising the mayor on these issues. Should he be confirmed as out Attorney General?

  37. This is precisely the kind of bullshit... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that privacy laws were intended to prevent. The potential for abuse is VASTLY higher than any possible good these things could do.

    Get rid of them.

  38. Especially since by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Insurance brings something else to the table: The experience of dealing with traffic situations. What happens if you cause an accident and someone sues you (as often does happen)? If you don't have insurance, you have to find and retain a lawyer, and you are on the hook for the cost of the lawyer and all settlement fees. So that means you have to maintain a pretty substantial reserve to be able to cover all that.

    I mean let's say you live in a bond state and the minimum is $50,000 since that's what the legal minimum coverage is. Ok, great. However you can't just count on that. The amount of a settlement could go way past that (and you are liable for it) and I'd imagine if you pay out of the bond you have to replace it as well. So you end up needing to have a couple hundred grand, including the bond, available for this purpose.

    Now also, if you have money like that, it probably is not sitting in a checking account. You probably have it in stocks or property or something. Ok, so what happens if you have an accident sometime like, say, now when the market is down? Now you have to lose money because you need to liquidate your assets at a bad time.

    Against that, there is simply maintaining liability insurance. You pay maybe $100/month, probably less, and get a $300,000 policy. Then, if you get in an accident, it's handled. If you get sued, the insurance company hires a lawyer to represent you and them, one who specializes in this (and specializes in settling before it goes to court). You most likely have nothing more to do with it.

    Many people find that to be cheap piece of mind. Even though they CAN afford to simply pay things out, it makes more sense in general to have an insurance company there to handle things. Same kind of deal as hiring a gardener or a financial planner. These are things you can do yourself but often those with money would rather have an expert take care of them so they don't have to worry.

    Having been in an accident, and been sued, I will always maintain insurance. Even if I have billions, to the point where I've no worries at all about being able to handle any settlement, I'll still maintain auto insurance because they will handle things if something happens. The $30,000-50,000 or so I'd save over my life of driving just isn't worth the hassle.

    1. Re:Especially since by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if I have billions, to the point where I've no worries at all about being able to handle any settlement, I'll still maintain auto insurance

      Gee, no surprise there. If I had billions of dollars I'd buy all sorts of things of only marginal value. It's only tempting to go without insurance when a person generally lacks of funds.

    2. Re:Especially since by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Having been in an accident, and been sued, I will always maintain insurance. Even if I have billions, to the point where I've no worries at all about being able to handle any settlement, I'll still maintain auto insurance because they will handle things if something happens. The $30,000-50,000 or so I'd save over my life of driving just isn't worth the hassle.

      On the other hand, I'd rather not drive at all. I'll save practically a million or so (cost of car + gas + insurance) over my life of not driving, and occasional rental costs + public transportation usage is pocket change compared to that.

      Sadly, what most people do not realize is that they do not actually need a car ownership (or need to put themselves in a situation in which they need a car ownership).

    3. Re:Especially since by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to get out more. I'd suggest a car and driving. There are some of us who truly NEED to be able to drive in order to function in today's society.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Especially since by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      You need to get out more. I'd suggest a car and driving. There are some of us who truly NEED to be able to drive in order to function in today's society.

      Not all societies are as retarded as the US is by having gutted it's public transportation network and forcing people to sacrifice a significant portion on their income to car and oil companies.

    5. Re:Especially since by Thaelon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not always a matter of public inadequate transportation.

      It's often a matter of simple sprawl.

      Europe is fucking tiny. Ok? Most of our states are bigger than many countries. That's not being elitist, it's being realistic. Even our modestly sized states are bigger than many countries. And The population density in some areas is so low as to be silly to provide public transportation.

      The cities where things are densely populated DO have public transportation. NY, DC and Atlanta to name a few.

      But to covering the urban sprawl with the kinda of public transportation you would need for everyone to get around just isn't feasible yet.

      --

      Question everything

    6. Re:Especially since by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll save practically a million or so (cost of car + gas + insurance) over my life of not driving

      You are either delusional, bad at math or both. You would have to spend $1000 per month from the time you turned 16 until you were 100 for it to cost around a million dollars.

    7. Re:Especially since by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      In short: Insurance is useful for incidents that are both relatively rare AND relatively costly.

      Should be nothing new to intelligent people, should it?

      But I've seen college people - regular smokers, to be exact - skipping fire insurance for their home. But I'm no insurance salesman, so who am I to judge?

    8. Re:Especially since by novakyu · · Score: 1

      You are either delusional, bad at math or both. You would have to spend $1000 per month from the time you turned 16 until you were 100 for it to cost around a million dollars.

      Let's see here, per month:
        * Insurance for most people: $100
        * Monthly payment on the car: $500
        * Monthly gas: $200 (based on usage of some people I know)

      That's already $800 as an average figure. For some people, insurance will be much higher than that (even higher than $1000!), for others, it may be lower. Some people might buy a new car every 5 years or so (so always paying something for the car), others might use the same car for 30 years (this would make a huge difference, actually).

      Now, if you factor in inflation (about 4%), in 50 years, that $800 will be $5700, so, for rough estimation, we can use the average: more than $3000, and that's more than enough to spend $1 mil, if you drive from when you were 20 until you were 70---not a terribly unlikely scenario.

      Who's bad at math now?

      P.S. To be perfectly honest, I came up with that $1 mil figure by squinting at my parent poster's figure of $20,000 - $30,000 that he would save by not paying for insurance, but it's not too far from the truth.

    9. Re:Especially since by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right about Pop Density but wrong about Europe. Continental Europe is slightly larger than the Continental US (~10m km2 vs ~9m km2). Also state size is irrelevant. Texas is Bigger than Luxembourg? great. Well France is bigger than Rhode Island. SFW...

    10. Re:Especially since by novakyu · · Score: 1

      It's not always a matter of public inadequate transportation.

      It's often a matter of simple sprawl.

      And, may I ask, why do we need to sprawl?

      And it's not just a matter of sprawling either. It's perfectly possible for cities to be smaller and more spaced out without requiring that every person needs to own a car and drive every day.

      Driving only becomes a necessity when people don't want to live where they work (so they have to drive 20, 30 miles to work every day), and when people don't want essential services like shops and hospitals in their suburban residential areas.

      If travel between cities aren't as frequently necessary, then a periodic bus systems (which are actually becoming more popular these days, for obvious reasons---look for Megabus) would suffice nearly for everyone.

      Americans (and I speak as someone who lives in California) put themselves in this position themselves---the vastness of America didn't have as much to do with this mess as lack of proper planning did.

    11. Re:Especially since by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This reminds me of a story my mom related to me some time ago. She encountered a couple of German tourists who happened to ask her if she could tell them how long it would likely take them to drive to ... Nebraska? (some midwestern state, anyway) ... from Eastern Washington. She told them it would likely take at least a couple days, and more if they didn't push it. The couple was noticeably shocked at the length of time required. She had to point out to them that the drive would be akin to traveling from Berlin to Moscow.

      A lot of the disconnect in comparative discussions between what occurs in Europe vs. what occurs in the US stems from the fact that perspectives are so different between natives of each particular locale. Simple comparisons don't take into account all the complex assumptions and biases that would truly make for an accurate apples-to-apples picture.

    12. Re:Especially since by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Well, I live in denmark, which believe is supposed to be one of those wonderful public transportation countries. I've also tried the system in germany, which is more or less equally bad. Let me tell you: The first thing I did after finishing uni and getting a job was to buy a damn car. Public transportation sucks major ass balls here. Trains and busses are always late, it's expensive, it's crowded, and it's just such a enormous hazzle. With my own car I can go where I want, when I want, and I need not worry about being late or anything.

      Theres also a nice german website for "hitchhiking" when you need to go far places. You make an entry where you are planning to go and when, and then people can sign up and pay for being taken with you. (mitfahrgelegenheit.de)

      The only thing I regret is buying a stupid used car that breaks down all the time. But otherwise the quality of life with a car is just so much higher, even here in the civilized public transportation part of the world.

    13. Re:Especially since by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      Ironically, we'd have enough public transport if everyone started using it instead of the bus. What comes first? The chicken or the egg? I live a town near a small city. Buses don't run on holidays, sundays, or late at night. Retail workers work all of those times. The people who could use the bus system the most can't and end up getting cars. Now they don't use the bus.

      Then again, some people are just whiners and hate riding the bus.

    14. Re:Especially since by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The idea that buses should ever stop running is just idiotic on the face of it.

      Yes, running buses at those times loses money, but failing to run buses at all times means people won't take the bus at other times. It's just pure stupidity.

      I used to go to college in Marretta, which had a very suck bus transport system, but it did work. I used it for a year, and then got a car, and rarely used it after that.

      Why? Because it shut down at 11, and the main place I wanted to go was to a nearby mall, where I'd wander for a while, go to the bookstore, and then go see a movie. Movies often end past 11, and the sheer crappiness of their bus system means I would start getting worried if I didn't catch their 10 o'clock bus. (And I was a lucky one, my school being directly before the bus terminal, on that bus route, so if I caught a bus it would always reach home.)

      Of course, half the stores closed at 11 also, at least on Fridays and weekends, which meant that the workers stayed until at least 11:30, which meant they couldn't get a bus.

      Even if the store closed at 10, they'd stay until 10:30, which meant they could possibly get one bus, but heaven forbid if they had to transfer to another bus line to get home.

      The correct solution to 'loses money' is to switch to vans at a certain point in the night, and switch back in the morning. Not to just shut the whole damn route off, which means that unless people are positive they'll be able to catch a bus before that point, they won't take it to get there either.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:Especially since by porpnorber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing that baffles me is that Americans think sprawl is a natural phenomenon. It is not. It is the result of bone-headed urban 'planning.' Zoning laws require that you live and work and buy your food in different places. Planning priorities allow highways to break footpaths, take roads across rail lines without building bridges, create entire suburbs with no sidewalks and with fences to prohibit walking other than on the road itself. Not having a car is not an option in the minds of the policymakers.

      And as to the scale of things, I believe you are simply mistaken. The USA is a federation of states. The European Union is a federation of states. In both cases, these states contain cities of widely varying sizes. European cities have, by and large, better transit systems than American cities. This is not about scale (what, you think London is small?). European states have, by and large, better transportation systems than American ones. Feel free to compare large, wealthy US states with Germany. Hell, feel free to compare small, wealthy US states with Germany. Europe as a whole has a better ground transportation network than the US, and their sizes are of the same order.

      I'm not saying there's no difference; the US has only a quarter of the population density of Europe. The again, the US has twice the per-capita GDP with which to build infrastructure.

      No, the real difference is just that America hates infrastructure. And looooooves concrete.

    16. Re:Especially since by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame Europe for your inability at urban planning. If you weren't a bunch of lazy fat arsed suburbanites you wouldn't have this problem.

    17. Re:Especially since by xaxa · · Score: 1

      "In America, 100 years is a long time. In Europe, 100 miles is a long way."

    18. Re:Especially since by asynchronous13 · · Score: 1

      I think it's hilarious that you consider Atlanta to be densely populated. It's very telling of the American perception of things.

    19. Re:Especially since by chrb · · Score: 1
    20. Re:Especially since by elysiuan · · Score: 1

      this makes the assumption that everyone always has a car payment to make which is patently untrue.

    21. Re:Especially since by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sadly, what most people do not realize is that they do not actually need a car ownership (or need to put themselves in a situation in which they need a car ownership).

      BURN the heretic!
      KILL the unbeliever!
      Bring down Biblical punishments on the doubter (in the sense of punishing him and his descendants, even to the seventh generation ; yes, it is the fault of someone who won't be born for a century from now that this heretic hasn't re-canted ; not having been conceived yet is not sufficient excuse for not restraining the heretic).

      I'm having to face the grim and unpleasant prospect of having to get a car. Or, to be more precise, having to be the owner-of-record for a year or so, until my daughter has accumulated a year of no-claims bonus. Not that I've got any intention of doing any more driving than the absolute minimum I have to (including instructional driving). Both the wife and I have long since ceased to consider driving to be anything other than an unpleasant, expensive, frustrating, dangerous chore. The question of whether the half-hour a day that a car might save over using the bus ... is a very open question. The wife finds the traffic in this country to be so terrifyingly aggressive that she's unlikely to use the car during morning rush hour herself ; obviously I'm not going to use any car while I'm at work at sea, or on a different continent.
      Add to that the shit that is fucking with maintenance ... who would want one? Sure, if you want to live out in the country, then that's your choice. But don't delude yourself that it's anything other than another cost of the lifestyle choices that you make.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    22. Re:Especially since by will_die · · Score: 1

      There is an old joke about this:
      What is the difference between Americans and Europians?
      Americans think 200 years is long time.
      Europians thinks 200 miles(322KM) is a long distance.

    23. Re:Especially since by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Well, not having a Car in the US would basically mean abandoning well over 50% of the country, as I really doubt anyone is going to massivly increase public transit to useable levels in many of our smaller cities, forget about the massive rural areas. Great for a nature preserve, maybe not so great for a sudden doubling of the population of the cities (I seem to recall that about 50% of the US population lives in smallish (100k or less cities or rural areas).

      In the cities in the US, or for moving to another country, I can easily imagine the costs for *that* lifestyle equalling the million of the car over the other costs of living rurally (rent, higher prices for food, the cost to move to another country, get a visa, etc).

      I would expect that the choices aren't really to save money, but to pick where and how you want to live.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    24. Re:Especially since by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Very slightly larger. Three times the population...

    25. Re:Especially since by el_benito · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bit antagonistic to attack the US from being different from European tradition in this case, as the European systems had to grow overtop of centuries of infrastructure that had evolved to fill the needs of the average user who probably didn't even have a horse.

      The cities of the US have had a much shorter lifespan and had very different technologies* available at the time of their construction. Even more fun, start out with the older cities settled 'organically' on the East Coast and then move on to cities that were founded much later, and you'll get no end of differences.

      * Lust for shiny new technology being responsible for many of man's mistakes

      --
      http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
    26. Re:Especially since by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I think it's frightening that you don't consider Atlanta to be densely populated. It's very telling of the European perception of things.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    27. Re:Especially since by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. But to look at this from the other end, the US was built on the basis of centuries of experience from Europe about what infrastructure is needed. And yet the US ends up worse off. A short lifespan should be an advantage in design and planning; no legacy worries. But this is not at all how things have played out.

      I'm in Silicon Valley at present. This place is bright shiny new; thirty years ago, as far as I can guess, it was farmland. It developed because of a massive and historically speaking almost instantaneous influx of wealth. This happened after the development of modern urban planning, and indeed in an area with universities that teach the subject. So: it could have been pedestrian friendly. It could have had trams everywhere. The cycle paths could have been engineered in. The over-zoning error could have been avoided.

      It didn't happen.

      I'm not saying it's as bad as it could be, and it is improving (for example, with a little effort I have been able to arrange my life so that the San Jose light rail does exactly what I need), but I have no hesitation in saying that it's not within an order of magnitude of what it could, or should, have been, given all the additional knowledge, technology and opportunity that the planners here had, as you yourself point out, access to.

    28. Re:Especially since by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Geez. Thanks for pointing that out. As you might notice above, I've completely missed that possibility.

      Some people might buy a new car every 5 years or so (so always paying something for the car), others might use the same car for 30 years (this would make a huge difference, actually).

  39. Anecdotal Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years I worked as a dispatcher for a large impound lot that was contracted to several Police Departments in the greater Los Angeles areas.

    The sheer number of people that were pulled over and had their car taken for Driving on a Suspended or Lapsed Insurance (multiple tickets required) was insane, but far worse was the fact that the majority of the people who 'suffered' from their vehicle being impounded could afford to pay insurance. Brand new cars, straight off the lot, paid for in cash - no insurance.

    I remember one gentleman who had a Bentley who was driving on a suspended without insurance - odds are he had the money for the insurance just chose not to get it.

    I am sure there are people out there who cannot afford to buy insurance (especially with gas prices up and the economy down). However, there is an adage that goes "If you can't afford insurance you can't afford to drive."

    Posted AC cause I once impounded a car with custom tags of CMDRTCO.

    1. Re:Anecdotal Story by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      "remember one gentleman who had a Bentley who was driving on a suspended without insurance - odds are he had the money for the insurance just chose not to get it."

      Odds are he had the money to pay his liabilities to an amount greatly exceeding the minimum required coverage. So why force him to bleed money on premiums?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Anecdotal Story by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Odds are he had the money to pay his liabilities to an amount greatly exceeding the minimum required coverage. So why force him to bleed money on premiums?

      From Wikipedia: "Today UK law is defined by The Road Traffic Act 1988, which was last modified in 1991. The act requires that some motorists either be insured, have a security, or have made a specified deposit (£500,000 as of 1991) with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court, against their liability for injuries to others (including passengers) and for damage to other persons' property resulting from use of a vehicle on a public road or in other public places." So you don't need to have motor insurance if you deposit half a million pound! I wonder how many people use that provision.

      Having mandatory insurance has several benefits for society. The first and obvious one is that if you are a victim of an accident, there will be money to pay for it (apparently not in the USA; only $25,000 required. Germany has 1 million Euros, Austria has 3 million euros mandatory third party injury insurance). The second is that whoever caused the accident has much less reason to avoid paying. What if I crash into your brand new Ferrari with no insurance? I'll drive off and hope nobody saw me. With insurance, I make sure my insurance pays for it. Third reason: If you are injured in an accident, and nobody there except you and the person causing the accident, chances are that the person responsible won't get help if they don't have insurance.

    3. Re:Anecdotal Story by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      3: I don't know what kind of backward-arse country you come from, but emergency rooms are required to treat regardless of ability to pay. They try to collect later.

      2: No, you still try to drive off and hope nobody saw you, because you're an ass that doesn't want to deal with increased insurance premiums, either. Or, you're a reasonable person who either pays out of pocket or maintains insurance.

      1: 1e6 € is a bit high, but the way insurance works, amounts much much greater than the typical costs don't result in all that much higher of a premium. But what would be good for the wealthy in Germany is the option to certify somehow that they have liquid assets to cover some certain value, and insurance with a very high deductible to cover the rest.

      I agree that the British option of a deposit is pretty unreasonable, but even that is better than insurance in a number of circumstances: i.e. when interest on investing that half-million pounds doesn't cover the premium for the insurance plan that frees up the money for investing.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  40. Wisconsin State Police already have them..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wisconsin State Police already have them, on Highway 41 near Oshkosh, and probably elsewhere too.

  41. Suppose the DHS decides it wants ... by mpaque · · Score: 1

    Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?

    Well, they'll just have to buy the data from the state DMV like everyone else.

    For audit purposes the DMV or equivalent agency computers in most states log queries. Queries may include information from the querying system.

    In the case of license plate recognition systems, a private agency such as AutoVu http://www.autovu.com/index.cfm?&lang=EN_CA may be involved as well, and will likely have more detailed records. While not public records, I suspect that for a modest gratuity an underpaid employee could be found who wouldn't mind printing out a bit of the database.

    I think it's interesting that companies I can find doing the monitoring gruntwork, AutoVu and Declan NET, are Canadian. Canada has "The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act" (PIPEDA) to protect Canadians from this sort of information collection. Perhaps it doesn't cover data processing originating and destined for foreign lands?

  42. Honestly I don't see the problem here. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I get my emissions done. It costs money. I pay for parking, it costs money. If someone is not paying these things, they need to be brought to justice.

  43. Been in use in the UK for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Already got them in the UK (called ANPR); nothing new.
    Just let our fascist big brother society slowly take you over and you won't even notice your human rights being violated like a drunk college chick at frat party.

  44. Sl_pp___ sl_p_ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear /.,

    Several of you seem to be taking alright to the idea of a centralized government tracking database.

    Would you all mind just making a list of what privacies you would like to give up so we can get to work on solutions to those oversights after we finish putting in the additional cameras?

    Love,
    Your overbearing government.

    P.S. It's for the children, promise.

  45. Beware the mall too. by pentalive · · Score: 1

    Recently, while parking in Arden Fair Mall (Sacramento ca) I noticed the rentacop car had cameras on both front window pillars looking out and downward, into the general direction of the license plate. He was driving up and down the rows of parked cars, slowly.

    I wonder what a rentacop needs with a list of parked car license plate numbers.

    1. Re:Beware the mall too. by mhotchin · · Score: 1

      Looking for people using the parking lot as a park-and-ride?

    2. Re:Beware the mall too. by pentalive · · Score: 1

      Then how long am I allowed to remain in the mall?

      There is an apple store in there. What if I just spend all day there because it's 103 degrees out and I don't want to run my own AC at home?

      What if I work there? I suppose employees plates are registered or they have to park in an "employee area".

  46. It's not that big a leap... by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

    Already, if your government wants to find you, it can probably check where your phone is, or where your car's navigator is; we even voluntarily install security systems designed to tell the police where the car is in the event it's stolen. I think having a government record of where I was at any given time would make a good alibi for the physically impossible speeding fines which would put me in two places at once. The only caveat I'd want on the system if the data were stored for any amount of time is easy access to data about my own vehicle(s), for use in such cases.

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    1. Re:It's not that big a leap... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Very few car navigation systems send any information to anything. It isn't something that can be checked in any sort of a trivial manner.

      I'm not real sure what OnStar allows, but it isn't exactly pervasive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  47. they are by Eil · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't mention what happens to the data on legal plates. Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?

    Think about all the cameras that are going up in cities and semi-urban areas in the name of "public safety". London is completely blanketed is cameras and New York is aiming to do the same. Then, consider that in most cities, you're driving under at least one red-light camera every half-mile and more are going up all the time because they're essentially pole-mounted money machines. Now they also have these cameras that can read your license plate when you're in shopping for groceries.

    So, you're being watched when you're walking around town, driving around town, and even when you're parked in a private lot. Now that we have facial recognition software, license plate readers, cell phone tracking, and even gait recognition, we know for a _fact_ that we can definitely be tracked whilst going about our daily business as well.

    The only question is whether or not somebody is putting all of these pieces together into one system that not only makes permanent records of our movements, but can infer personal and business relationships based on who we're with or near. And I think you already know the answer.

  48. Revenue sharing? by Rastl · · Score: 1

    A number of cities that use the traffic cameras actually don't go over the 'tapes' themselves. They contract out with a company that gets a percentage of the fines.

    So let's think about this. A non-law enforcement company with a stake in finding violations gets to write citations.

    [sarcasm]I don't see how this could go wrong.[/sarcasm]

  49. SCMODS by hack++slash · · Score: 1

    Elwood: Shit! Jake: What? Elwood: Rollers. Jake: No? Elwood: Yeah. Jake: Shit. Elwood: What? What did I do? Officer Daniel: You failed to stop at a red signal. Elwood: The light was yellow sir. Officer Daniel: May I see your license please? Jake: Goddamnit! Elwood: Man I haven't been pulled over in six months. I bet those cops have got SCMODS. Jake: SCMODS? Elwood: State, County, Municipal, Offender, Data, System.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:SCMODS by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      Ah, so that's what happens when you post to slashdot after vodka shots, the inability to remember your html tags...

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  50. I got caught... by Datamonstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... on camera going through an intersection on a red that I either did not see or acknowledge and I got sent a "ticket" in the mail. It's only a "ticket" because it actually says on the back of the ticket that no driving record marks or arrest warrants would result from the non-payment of the citation. And it's from a third party company, NOT the local or state government. You can be sure I was pissed when I discovered that some company I never heard of was handling this instead of law enforcement. The only real official figment it bore was the name of the policeman who is handling the citation. That must be one hell of an easy job.

    To go to court and and fight it would cost 100$, but the citation itself is only 75$. I thought about taking it to court and fighting it on the grounds that the burden of proof rests upon the company who maintains the camera and data to PROVE that the data had not been altered. I'd basically argue that without that proof, once my car had been photographed just once there would be little that could be done to stop the company from photoshopping my car into an intersection during a red light whenever they wanted to and claiming that it was me who ran the red light. I'm sure there's some violation of rights existing somewhere in the laws that govern this, I just don't have 175$ or the desire to go to court and try to find it. Besides it doesn't matter because the ONLY repercussion that will result in not paying the "ticket" is that the price goes up by 25$ once and then it goes against my credit rating. How the hell can they do that to begin with? That's yet another WTF.

    I'd really like to see this sort of thing busted wide open as unconstitutional until there's some checks to make sure the ones handling the data is responsible.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    1. Re:I got caught... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm missing something, but if there's no risk of marks on your driving record or an arrest warrant for non-payment, why didn't you just... not pay it? Especially if it's from a non-government entity. Toss it in the shredder and forget about it.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:I got caught... by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I did. No way I'm going to just bend over and take it. I really wish I had tried to fight it though. I just couldn't part with 100$ like that, though. I really doubted I could win it.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  51. Damnit, Where is my tinfoil hat. by tritox · · Score: 0, Troll

    This technology is nothing new, LAPD has been using it to search for stolen/wanted vehicles for years now, but I forget this is the internet, you add the big evil government twist to it and then it becomes news.

  52. One problem by Sniper98G · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once car thieves catch on to this they can start carrying a clean plate with them. I doubt the reader can tell what kind of car the plate is on and determine if that is the right kind of vehicle like an officer doing the check could.

    So in the long run this will not be used to combat car thieves; it will target mostly law abiding citizens who just screwed up.

    1. Re:One problem by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Thieves will either have to change the front and rear plates right where the car is, or drive it to a less noticeable location. Either action can attract attention. Also, notice that people use a razor blade to score their registration sticker to prevent it from being taken. Expect plates to be well secured to prevent easy swapping.

  53. Citizen ownership is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They are the size of softballs, cost $25K, and can scan and run thousands of plates a day

    When they cost $99, then everyone can have them in their cars. You can scan for police cars, and upload your data to a common web site that will pool the data and produce a real-time map of their locations.

    Or you can log all the drivers you pass by, pool the results with other drivers, and data-mine the results. Cross-referencing with other public databases will eventually allow you to map the owners to many of the plates.

    Then we need another $99 softball-sized sous-veillance device that transmits real-time video of your drive to your own remote storage. Including the driver who cuts you off, or the hopped-up steroidal cop who threatens you during a routine traffic stop.

  54. Nothing to hide? by Something+Witty+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful
    >> Why is everyone so petrified of being accountable for their actions these days?

    Obviously you have never been accused of doing something that you didn't do.

    > Living in Texas (and yes, I like it here, even though it was 105 today) > there are more than a fair share of illegal immigrants on our roadways. > Many of them downright suck at driving. Most of them don't have insurance.

    Build a fence. Post armed guards.

    Outsource to Mexico instead of China, so they will have paying jobs at home and aren't tempted to try and get past the armed guards.

    > 3. What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there

    Your vehicle was recorded as being near the scene of some horrible crime. Can you prove you didn't commit said horrible crime? No? Off to jail with you.

    > Your location in a public place is

    No one's business. It is not even remotely reasonable to suggest that we must stay home 24x7 with blinds drawn.

    1. Re:Nothing to hide? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      What do I have to hide? Who cares where I go, or how I get there

      Your vehicle was recorded as being near the scene of some horrible crime. Can you prove you didn't commit said horrible crime? No? Off to jail with you.

      Even better: your vehicle was recorded as going to the scene just before the crime, leaving just after, and we have no record of your vehicle ever having gone to that part of town before. All other vehicles in that area at the time went there regularly.

    2. Re:Nothing to hide? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Outsource to Mexico instead of China, so they will have paying jobs at home and aren't tempted to try and get past the armed guards."

      Bingo!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. abuse by pxlmusic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the cops can always *find* a reason to stop/ticket you.

    if you don't think so, stick around. the "i have nothing to hide" argument bears out to be no good reason.

    anyone given this kind of power (see the police) will find some way to abuse it to their own ends -- and often get away with it.

    --
    "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    1. Re:abuse by kadehje · · Score: 1

      if you don't think so, stick around. the "i have nothing to hide" argument bears out to be no good reason.

      If they don't have a reason already, reciting the "nothing to hide" argument can be considered probable cause in itself. If a suspect says he's got nothing to hide, then that means to a cop that the suspect IS hiding something and just trying to use a red herring to divert the cop's attention.

    2. Re:abuse by pxlmusic · · Score: 1

      or that they think that "it can't happen to me"

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
  56. Doughnuts + Coffee = Five Oh by ben2umbc · · Score: 1

    Ha, come to Howard County where we already have way too many police with way to much time on their hands. The point is though, its NOT making something more efficient because something like this never existed before.

  57. Re:Don't get too paranoid over this, Dale Gribble. by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to disclose which brand and model of system, but the one my employer installs has zero capability right now of gathering license plate numbers if there's no hit in the "wanted vehicles" database. I've met and worked with the programmers who wrote the software of this system and there's no initiative at all to add GPS coordinate gathering to it at all, in fact they purchased the OCR capability from a third party and would probably have to hire an outside developer to add a GPS feature if they wanted to include such to their system because they are not all that sharp.

  58. Suppose... by Firewheels · · Score: 1

    "Suppose the DHS decides it wants a permanent archive of who was where, when?"

    Suppose they already have?

  59. My wife was arrested: $600 fine by clafortefeelingsoftw · · Score: 3, Informative

    My wife was arrested using one of these devices. The police in Montreal is testing this technology, they plan to install it on a hundred cars by the end of the year. After speaking with the police, it's clear that this technology won't affect real criminals, it will only catch honest people like my wife. I posted the story and technical details on my blog: http://www.enlighten3d.com/2008/08/03/a-computer-vision-system-arrested-my-wife/

  60. Duh by taustin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So, the basic complaint is that instead of using these cameras to catch people who break one particular law, they'll be used to catch people who break many laws. And that's a bad thing, eh?

    As to the DHS wanting an archive of your activity, well, so what? What you do in public places, like on a road, is not private now, and never has been. It's always been legal for the cops to track where you go in public places. This is no different.

    Cops framing people for things they didn't do isn't a problem with the technology they use, it's a problem with corrupt cops. Don't like it? Get off your lazy, stupid ass and get invovled in local politics, where one person *can* make a difference. Don't think you can? Then you deserve to be a slave.

  61. They'll track "deviancy" and use your National ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually they'll track everyone enough
    that they'll be able to identify "deviancy-from-personal-norm",
    which authority needs to do, to discover "problems".

    One of the reasons they want it is so that
    those who are likely to commit crimes like
    committing suicide ( to escape "opressive" authority )
    can be caught, confined & drugged, before they succeed,
    so they can be contributing to civil machine again, as soon as possible.

    Escapees cost economy/authority lots, you know.

    Another thing, is that if you want to hide from authority,
    you ARE untrustworthy,
    and maybe a criminal/terrorist, right?
    From authority's perspective?
    So tracking by required-to-be-on-you, unshielded, National (rf)ID is inevitable.

    Total Information Awareness/monitoring is inescapable requirement.

    Discovering developing leftist/activist associations is another reason to track everyone.
    ( criminals associate with criminals, right?
    If you've got the grade/high school "Dirt"-files ( term used by school admin ) on someone,
    and it indicated they ( or their associate ) were untrustworthy then,
    then those who associate with 'em need more "looking-into" )

    God Bless the New World Order:
    the serfdom humanity escaped from, returns, under new "monarchs"..
    we are Saved.

    --

    ( from independence,
    and from freedom )

  62. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rapes, Murders, Drugs, Physical Abuses, Bond Jumpers, Thiefs, Gangs, Dealers, Pushers, Prostitutes, Pimps, Thugs, Creeps, Mafia, Beat Walkers, Con-Artists, Smugglers, Illegal Aliens, etc etc.

    Governments don't want to tackle those issues anymore, they have a no-win outcome, they don't profit from them. The law enforcements #1 job is to make as much money off the civil things as possible. They only interact with the criminal aspect to keep the numbers up. But I don't blame them, it's your government, your vote, your choice to allow them to act that way.

  63. I can't believe I have to say this again by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    Driving is a ***PRIVILEGE***, not a right. Drive bad enough, and expect your privilege to be revoked.

    Driving is done **ON PUBLIC ROADS**, where there is **NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY**, none whatsoever. So it is perfectly legitimate to have cars movement tracked. Traffic rules have to be enforced, and it is perfectly legitimate to track cars to do so.

    You don't like it? Take the bus or the train. No buses or trains? Though fucking noogies, or move to an area that was not moronic enough to trash them.

    1. Re:I can't believe I have to say this again by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Driving is done **ON PUBLIC ROADS**, where there is **NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY**, none whatsoever."

      No true at all.

      You have a lot of privacy, just not visual privacy

      You also have a lot of rights, one of which is the right to be innocent until proven guilty. This type of tracking presumes everyone is guilty.

      And when every face on the bus and train is scanned?

      Of course, you also completely overlook many realities of living in society.

      You might want to start think beyond the immediate.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I can't believe I have to say this again by riondluz · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you and anyone who continually asserts that driving is a priv is incorrect.

      Driving anything: a motor vehicle, a horse-drawn cart, or in the case of my 80YO neighbor, a
      lawn tractor w/his wife riding behind in the leaf trailer, is a RIGHT.
      Just because our society is 'modern', it should have no bearing on
      one's right of conveyance on a public thoroughfare, paid for with their tax dollars.

      It is a right because, even moreso than in the past, nearly everyone depends on their ability
        to get from point A to point B in order to eke out a living and survive.

      If it was not a right, but in fact just a priv, then there would not be so many drivers who
      are still on the road after (or while) having their license suspended; not just once or twice,
      but a dozen of times or more. Even the courts recognize that they cannot prevent people from
      getting to/from a job, or the grocery store, or where-ever necessary to survive.

      If the courts actually upheld their laws rigorously, then the backlash would lead to
      the inevitable proof that Motor Vehicle Laws are in fact unconstitutional; not 'fact'
      based, are non-uniform, are not safety-based, are arbitrary and predjudicial, and are not equally applied.

      Its a well-known fact that the State gets away with their shenanigans because so few people contest
      their citations. Those who do, know that they have >50% of beating the ticket.
      Hell, a $100 ticket can have great entertainment value. Plead not-guilty, stall for continuances
      as long as possible, harangue the courts w/every right you have remaining, have fun cross-examining the citing officer; challenge the law, the cops, the courts. Then appeal after you've been found
      guilty. Rinse and repeat. Invite your friends to the courthouse.
      After awhile you get a rep for costing the court way more than the price of the ticket.

      Most cops dont like having to stop people for bullshit laws. Speeding, generally, is one of them.
      Specially if you are not a clear and present danger to anyone on the road. Specially if after
      the routing check they find nothing outstanding.

      When you get stopped, before being cited (and being excessively polite) inform the cop that
      you'll fight the citation and if you beat the speeding ticket, that you'll be calling him as a witness for your defense in every subsequent court case you get.
      After awhile, the cops stop showing up for your court date.

      Driving is a RIGHT. Driving safe is your RESPONSIBILITY. If you dont cause accidents then
      what you do (and how you do it) should be your business. If you do cause an accident then you should fully PAY the damages (screw no-fault) and if it means you risk losing everything to your
      bad judgement then so be it. You become the example for others to act more responsibly.

      Current motor vehicle laws, defined under the priv meme, actually minimizes
      personal ACCOUNTABILITY rather than increasing it, by spreading 'percieved' risks among
      everyone it lessens the actual risk for those who cause damages (at any speed, in any vehicle)
      Bad drivers are now the law-breakers not the damage-causers, even though their breaking the
      law may have had no consequences for anyone, including themselves.

      Sorry if i expressed my thoughts poorly.

      --
      resist propaganda
  64. isn't this an illegal search? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    wouldn't a license plate be "papers" ?

    This sort of thing bothers me. When the government throws out a dragnet, it's an illegal search.

    There has to be probable cause.

    Why aren't law enforcement already going after criminals with warrants?

    Why do they have to search innocent people? It's a violation of the constitution.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  65. AD&D coverage by amake · · Score: 1, Funny

    plus I even pay for supplemental AD&D coverage

    Is that so you're compensated if your level 12 rogue gets killed by an orc?

    1. Re:AD&D coverage by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Unless the orc is a Cleric, that would be an 'Act of God'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  66. Re:Don't get too paranoid over this, Dale Gribble. by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    Understand your desire to keep the company name, unfair of me to ask I suppose. If you've seen the video I've posted in other posts here you can see why I and others aren't too comfortable. The system you're working with may be having some issues but no way will I bet that they all will or that they won't just keep on trying until "they" get it "right".

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  67. Where hackers (crackers) can really start messing by sauge · · Score: 1

    Viruses, Trojans, and various injections are already playing heck with the financial systems and people's private monies.

    Just think what can happen to the governance of a country when "data vandals" hit the information system of a major city. No property taxes for some - more for others. Arrest soccer moms and eliminate pedophiles from police lists.

    There is enough bad data in there already (ever hear of a data audit for various government data?) (How about a grant for auditing voter registration lists - who is on there that is dead? A newly minted felon? Moved? Just how accurate is it?)

    Just imagine how things will be when people realize one cannot trust the government to be right.

  68. It's also convenient by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I'm sure the grandparent is basking in his environmental superiority I'll have to burst his bubble because I'm one of those people who bikes to work. I also live in walking distance of a great many things I need. All in all adds up to a fill up maybe once every 3-4 months or so. However, despite that, I still own a car. Why? It's convenient. There are various places and times I wish to drive somewhere and I can. I don't drive much, but for me the convenience is worth the cost.

    I like conveniences in my life, and thus I'm willing to pay for them. I don't need a dishwasher either, I suppose, I could do it by hand. Well guess what? I don't want to. I don't believe in earning money for it's own sake, I believe in earning it to live a happy, fulfilling life and part of that is having conveniences. If I cut everything down to a minimum yes, I could die with a lot more cash. However it turns out that, as they say, you can't take it with you.

    Also even if I didn't have a car, I'd still have to have insurance as I'm required to drive for work occasionally. Liability for you with no car is probably cheaper than with a car, but it isn't going to be free.

    1. Re:It's also convenient by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Also even if I didn't have a car, I'd still have to have insurance as I'm required to drive for work occasionally. Liability for you with no car is probably cheaper than with a car, but it isn't going to be free.

      That's interesting, in the UK the employer would pay for the insurance on a car used for work. Someone who doesn't own a car but drives a company-owned vehicle doesn't have their own insurance.

  69. Nothing new here... by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 1

    Another $25k per car (that's what, 2/3 the cost of the car itself?) out of the citizen's pockets so they can feel even less safe driving. And of course no one is going to complain.

    --
    The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
  70. Possible Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mount infrared LEDs around the border of the license plate to blind digital cameras while remaining unnoticed by the naked eye.

  71. Typical /, comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I think half the posters on /. must be newbies.

    Anyone who can't see the worth of these things, has obviously never sat in a car for 8 hours straight. Try doing that for a day, heck a week, ah hell, how about a year.
    Having these in a car actually allows the average cop more time to spend looking at the people and places they are patrolling.

    Instead of paying cops to do visual recognition exercises for most of their shift, which basically doesn't happen, you have a pc doing the mundane work.

    Automating tag screening means more people caught and ticketed or arrested, which ends up yielding a higher efficiency per dollar spent as return on total investment.
    Besides the fact that it will reduce the number of people driving without insurance, it will generate revenue from the scofflaws, and not myself and other law abiding citizens through higher taxes.

  72. Woo... note to self.. do not drink and post by Animaether · · Score: 1

    although rather articulate, I seem to rant a little.. not sure what's a worse hangover, reading that post or the headache :D
    Then again.. +4 Interesting? I should get some more of whatever I was having :D .. no. /nokarmabonus

  73. a positive experience by chrisboredwithlogins · · Score: 0

    We've had this technology for years (in the UK) and from anecdotal evidence it doesn't seem to suffer from lots of false hits, its had a positive effect on the number of habitual uninsured drivers. And given that a computer can recognise a face with a very high level of accuracy its almost certainly the case that this tech has been tested on a cctv near you...

    --
    there are thousands of windows applications that don't work on Linux - thankfully
  74. Compare to the UK... by Beowulf878 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in London, and its hilarious to compare the level of spying.

    Here, We have "congestion charge cameras" that record every single car's numberplate in every single street (where there is no "congestion charge" they call them "autoreaders" - they are on all the motorwars, bridges, & who knows where else...): apart from this, all of central London and most public places within the M25 are covered - very extensively - by CCTV.

    Furthermore, the public transport is paid for by using a ticket in the form of an electronic, registered-to-your-home-address "oyster card" which again monitors everywhere you go.

    The mobile phones you carry have - by law - every single phone-call and text recorded for the government: this same law covers email and the data is available not just to MI5 & MI6, not even just to the police - but "social workers" and "local government workers" have access to it.

    In short, depending on the study you choose the average Londoner is recorded on CCTV 200-450 times per day, their mobile is continously tapped (remember when people used to need a warrant? haha...) and their car is under observation all of the time...

    Compare that with only when a police car is passing...

    1. Re:Compare to the UK... by houghi · · Score: 1

      The upside is that there is absolutely no crime anymore in London, right?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Compare to the UK... by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      The mobile phones you carry have - by law - every single phone-call and text recorded for the government: this same law covers email and the data is available not just to MI5 & MI6, not even just to the police - but "social workers" and "local government workers" have access to it.

      Which law is that? I'd like to look it up.

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    3. Re:Compare to the UK... by kadehje · · Score: 1

      Just because it's worse in the UK doesn't make it right in the US. The US was founded as a reaction to the abuses of the Crown government, and for 150 years or so the US government actually tended to pay attention to personal rights. How times have changed: the only differences between the surveillance societies on each side of the pond are a combination of timing (if it's not already done in the US, it's coming) and transparency (similar stuff happened covertly by the pre-Watergate FBI and may very well be going on now).

      At least there's a public law in the UK stating what can be done with your mobile phone conversations. If the contents of one of your conversations was taken out of context to trump up some bogus charge against you, I would hope your defense attorney can have access to the call for the purpose of exonerating you. The Bush administration could conceivably be doing the exact same thing covertly right now, and there would be no recourse when one of your conversations causes you to be indefinitely detained as an "enemy combatant." Under a covert surveillance program, the fact that a call was recorded would be "officially" false, meaning your defense attorney would be SOL. The mindset I have with these measures is if an abuse can be imagined, it's most likely already being practiced.

      Seriously, to say "At least it's not as bad as London" isn't a valid excuse to me. Or when people get sent away for 20 years for having a gram of crack on them (particularly when the sentence for having an equal amount of equipotent powder would be MUCH less) saying: "Well, we're not as bad as China; they'd probably execute you over there for it!" That kind of thinking needs to stop in this country, otherwise we won't even look back to see what freedom was like. For all the liberty that was taken "for the children," I'm not having any kids since I can't imagine how horrendous the US might be in 20 years.

    4. Re:Compare to the UK... by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      The oyster card does not need to be registered to your home address. You can even get them from vending machines in places like Heathrow airport.

    5. Re:Compare to the UK... by smoker2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      FULL
      OF
      SHIT

    6. Re:Compare to the UK... by Beowulf878 · · Score: 1

      that depends - I am a student so mine must be or you cannot buy season tickets etc: I appreciate that you can in theory buy one anonymously, but since you will be doing so in the full glare of CCTV and then using it on CCTV, I am not sure its really that anonymous...

    7. Re:Compare to the UK... by Beowulf878 · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Compare to the UK... by Beowulf878 · · Score: 1

      I never said it was right - its VERY VERY wrong!!

      Its just interesting, I thought...

      And yeah China might be worse, but I am not going to live there either ;)

    9. Re:Compare to the UK... by Beowulf878 · · Score: 1

      hahaha. -----> firehose...

    10. Re:Compare to the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I live in North America. While reading this article I was thinking "OK, that's fine. But what about when the decide to put these things on street corners, stop lights, ..., the list goes on." Then you mentioned London and my perspective got a slap in the face!

    11. Re:Compare to the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Licence plate cameras is peanuts. In The Netherlands the government is planning to put a box in every car and truck that registers all movements of the vehicle via GPS and sends it via a GSM connection direct to a central database. They want to track all vehicles. The reason they claim to do this for is that they want let people only pay road tax for the amount they spend on the roads, and to discourage use of cars and use more public transportation. Of course, in public transportation they are planning to use the same card as in the UK, that also tracks your use of the system. Think about the enormous database of movements that this is going to create and what uses could be made of it.

    12. Re:Compare to the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also google RIPA - I know in theory they need a warrant to check this database, but in practise this is not the case - go onto telegraph.co.uk and search for RIPA, practically every week is a new hilarious story about...

  75. You want to put this tech back in a box? by cliffski · · Score: 1

    The thing is this technology is out there, its very efficient and useful, and can help solve crimes. And you want to somehow 'undo' it's invention?

    Good luck with that. The people on here who would like to pretend such surveillance tech didn't happen, and want to prevent it being used are the exact same people who tell the media companies that P2P is a tech that cannot be un-invented, and that people should stop trying to prevent it's use...

    I we prevent use of a tech because it *could* be misused, surely we block all P2P tech and all encryption yes? You can't have it both ways.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  76. Have Them in the UK Already by shakyj · · Score: 1

    It's kind of funny seeing all the comments here when that was what was what was happening in the UK a year or two ago. But now hardly anyone even cares. In the UK they can only keep the tracking data for 5 years because of the data protection act and as far as I am aware there has been no ethically questionable use of it to date. Only lots of people who would otherwise have got away with crimes caught instead

  77. Most replies are missing the point by Opr33Opr33 · · Score: 0

    The camera system simply does the same task that an officer does when he runs a plate, only it automates the task. Which means the officer is not tying up a radio channel and dispatcher OR typing the plate in a laptop while driving down the road. Aside from the privacy concern that our location in a public place is being noted, this is a good thing. One /.'er stated that we should not have tags on our vehicles. A number of years ago, SC did not require temporary tags when a vehicle was transfered. So people without insurance did not have tags as did people who just transfered a vehicle. Cops pulled over everyone without a tag. The state passed a law prevented cops from pulling over drivers solely on the basis they didn't have a tag. Car insurance costs skyrocketed making SC one of the highest insurance cost states in the US. Why, because there was no obvious way to stop uninsured motorists from driving and it was estimated that up to 50% of SC were no longer maintaining insurance. So yes, we want tags on our cars. One other scenario for a country without tag requirements. Vehicle theft would skyrocket because vehicles with tags are usually identifiable in the short term. W/o tags the chances that a stolen vehicle would be spotted is close to nill (unless you own a bright pink VW Thing or something similiar).

  78. Who makes this camera system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to see the website.

  79. An awesome idea; already in the UK. by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

    This system is in extremely frequent use in traffic patrol cars in the UK. They can scan hundreds of plates an hour and the cops are immediately alerted when someone with no road tax, insurance, or what not goes past.

    It's not "Minority Report"-like at all.. in Minority Report they're catching people BEFORE a crime is committed. These cameras catch people who've slipped the net. I'd much rather people with no insurance are pulled off the roads by any means necessary, than have them crash into me and make me lose my no claims bonus.

  80. No original ideas from amoorica then? by Viperlin · · Score: 0

    its called an ANPR system, I use them in work to cataloge deliverys to warehouses, if their on the list, they get let in, if not, tough they have to go through their paperwork with one of my operators. UK police have been using these for a while, so far under personal experience they do not sync with the database frequently enough, friends of mine have been pulled over for lots of things only to be let go saying "please hand in proof of * within 7 days or we will be in touch" does it catch people who willingly drive about without insurance/tax/legal cars.... yes!!! but on the other hand it has saved my ass from a long bit of paperwork like it used to, getting pulled over, no proof of insurance and lets say somebody stole your tax disc, as long as their up to date enough they can let you go inside 4 mins..... instead of half an hour like it used to be although american cops will just shoot people with no tax or insurance ..... watch out america!!!

  81. CAPTCHA by DustoneGT · · Score: 1

    I wonder if we can convince a state to issue custom CAPTCHA plates and we can all register there.

  82. The RIGHT to travel. by Something+Witty+Here · · Score: 1
    > the cops can always *find* a reason to stop/ticket you.

    Or invent one out of thin air. Once they have stopped you they go on a fishing expedition, looking for any little thing that might be imperfect.

    > Driving is a ***PRIVILEGE***, not a right.

    > Take the bus or the train.

    Lots of people say this but it isn't true. Read the constitution. People have the RIGHT to travel, but governments are doing all they can to take this right away. Commercial air travel is no longer usable. Some data entry error and they will not let you have a driver's license (the requirement for which is unconstitutional). Amtrak isn't safe (derails.) The bus? Do you enjoy getting beaten up or beheaded? Walk? How far can you walk carrying a few sheets of plywood, a bunch of 2x4s and a few bags of concrete mix?

    Some suggest that people in the US shouldn't complain because it is even worse in England. More insanity. If anything that is a great counter argument, because all those cameras in the UK haven't lowered the crime rate.

    What do you think Thomas Jefferson would say about the insane concept that travel is a "privilege"? About the government keeping track of where you go?

  83. What proper planning errors? by crovira · · Score: 1

    When the car companies, the tire companies and the oil companies were paying off municipal governments to tear up the subway tracks and get the scars paved over, they knew EXACTLY what they were letting us in for.

    This was deliberate, wanton and craven indifference to the information that was already published and widely available (Peak oil and the Hubbert theory was published back in 1956.)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  84. I am just thinking... by sam0737 · · Score: 1

    if I could beam some strong IR light to the plate to blind the camera or mess with the recognition (only to the point that it doesn't recognize this is actually a plate is enough), while it stays looking perfectly fine to a human eye.

  85. Also combining with rfid by shakyj · · Score: 1

    I was watching something the other day where they were testing some new plates that had RFID tags behind the real tag that were tamper proof and transmitted the VIN and the plate number. That matched with ANPR telling them if the RFID tag matches the plate on the car could be coming in shortly soon anyways

  86. How cheap could you make one? by argent · · Score: 1

    How cheaply could you make one, based on (say) an old laptop and webcam?

    Maybe one that can keep track of police plates?

    Welcome to the Transparent Society.

  87. Nothing to do with efficiency by geekoid · · Score: 1

    No, no it would not.

    Either way electronically or manually puts the presumption of guilt on the citizens.
    It assumes people are guilty by it's nature, that's the problem, not the fact that it's electronic or 'efficient'.

    It clearly isn't efficient in the post you are replying to.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. No it isn't silly by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Not wanting to be presumed guilty is not silly.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  89. For better privacy: by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Stop driving
    Burn drivers license
    Use passport (for photo id)
    Put passport in microwave for 15 seconds at full power to burn RFID chip/magnetic media.
    Live off the grid (no utility accounts/prepaid cell phone)
    Use cash!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  90. WTF? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    I cant believe this-in Aust we pay a single fee for both registration and 3rd party injury insurance, the insurance scheme is govt run, and it works very well, by having all drivers pay towards the cost.
    How incredibly backward, having the two seperate.
    No surprise here.

  91. Alarmist..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    ".....and can scan and run thousands of plates a day through the local Motor Vehicle Administration database".

    -----And they say that illegal file sharing sucks up bandwidth?! Once these are deployed, file sharing will *PALE* in comparison to the bandwidth that these things will suck up!

    However, alarmists may be making 'Minority Report' comaprisons already, but cops have been doing things like this since modern law enforcement came into being:

    First, there was the 'Hot Sheet'. Then there was the two-way radio. After that came the in-car computers where an officer can type in the license plate manually. Now, there are these automated scanners.

    It's *much* safer that having the officer manually type in the license plate by hand while trying to drive, which is just as incapacitating as cellular phones.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  92. Why not do what they do in Australia...? by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

    In Australia cars have to be registered annually, which includes compulsory 3rd party personal insurance. When you register the car, you get a sticker which you put on the inside of your windshield. The stickers are colour-coded by year, and have the expiry date written on them. It's very easy to see at a glance from afar whether the registration has expired.

    --
    I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  93. UK Already has this, nationwide by Michael+Snoswell · · Score: 1

    I think it was last year a terrorist drove a 4 weheel drive (SUV) into a bank in Scotland. The vehicle didn't blow up as intended and a mobile phone found in it was traced to an owner who's registration number was checked against the nationwide system of camera's usually used for traffic control and the guy was pulled off the road within 3 hours.

    I was really impressed by the computer system behind being able to scan every registration plate going down hundreds (if not thousands) of major roads over the whole country. In this case it worked very effectively and quickly.

    It's a balance between the police/bigbrother state and security. I don't know if anyone in the UK actually voted to have this kind of security but I imagine if you asked the average person in the street they'd be happy that criminals can be caught quickly using such a system. I doubt it gets used for every car theft or minor cases, but I'm only guessing.

    In the US it might be pointless because people would just drive on the minor roads and thre's a lot more to monitor in the first place. My thought was that this sytem must have been design and built up over many years - possibly well before the excuse of terrorist threats came into view. Hence it must have been a very far sighted, paranoid and powerful body that pushed for the system to be implemented in the first place

    --
    pithy comment
  94. More time to eat donuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like someone will have extra time to eat donuts

  95. Is my tinfoil hat on straight? by ursuspacificus · · Score: 1

    Eek.

    While I think it's fairly important to maintain car insurance and keep your car in reasonable condition, this is such an egregious over-stepping of bounds, and an invitation to such a vast array of civil liberties violations that I don't even know where to begin. Here's an old post of mine that sort of scratches the surface.

    Privacy is essential to liberty. Part of privacy is anonymity. Another part of privacy is securing that which is identifying. It's bad enough all cars (should) have an identifying plaque that ties the car to its owner (ideally), but it's horrifying to have a computer collecting those identies (and, no doubt, time and location information), doing who knows what with the information when it's done.

    Part of what's horrifying to me about this is that it is an implied blanket assumption of guilt cast over anyone with a car. A large class of people, no doubt. I wonder if all neighborhoods will be patrolled evenly. My guess would be no. As a result, I'd imigine that the bulk of arrests and prosecutions arising from this new "tool" will be in areas that already have higher-than-average "crime rates", "making life safer for the business criminals" [..apologies to the late George Carlin --ed.] In this country we used to joke about how in Eastern Europe and/or the USSR, everyone was asked if they had their "papers". It's much more convenient now that that don't have to stop you to check your "papers".

    Can/do they retain records for all plates scanned? If so, how are they secured? Are these records, if retained, available for subsequent mining for time and place information, like what video stores you frequent, where you meet your extramarital lover, or whether or not you visit the local "cabaret"... will these records be available to potential employers? What about potential landlords? Are there any laws in place to protect individuals from discrimination or persecution based on their driving habits or the places they visit frequently? Funny, I don't recall hearing anything about that.

    Ben Franklin is reported to have said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I guess history curricula in this country just kinda skip over that little gem... just like those who profess the rectitude and inerrancy of The Bible skip over the parts that say genocide, slavery and stoning children to death are OK.

    I guess we're supposed to just trust that the police and the government have our best interests at heart all the time. Have fun at Gitmo!

    Seriously, it's already been demonstrated that our government... YOUR government... is perfectly willing to disappear people to off-shore military bases or foreign countries known to be not-so-sqeamish about beating people with fire-hoses and pulling out fingernails to extract "information". We know that YOUR government is perfectly willing to dispense with Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment to detain "terrorists". What IS a "terrorist", anyway?! Anybody got a logically defensible definition of "terrorist" that includes, say, Osama bin Laden, but excludes ,say, George W. Bush?

  96. Mobile plate hunter -- uninsured motorists by RobertJon · · Score: 1

    Driving a car on public streets brings public responsibilities. I was hit from behind at a red light, completely his fault. I was effectively totalled. He tried to run away but I managed enough steering to cut him off. When the police came, turns out he was uninsured. He got an $85 "fine," far cheaper than thousands in insurance costs. I had to track him down, put a lien on his house to get (partially) repaid. Tell me again why we let uninsured motorists drive?

  97. OHIO by Budgreen · · Score: 1

    the ohio turnpike has been doing this for years... lane one into the state from both ends has one at the toll plaza also.

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  98. AutoCar-Live by infonote · · Score: 1

    I have submitted your article to http://www.autocar-live.com/ which is a social site where users can submit car/auto articles and vote for already submitted articles. Register and vote for the article to appear on the frontpage at http://www.autocar-live.com/upcoming.php

    --
    Visit http://www.kaizenlog.com
  99. This is deployed in California in the LA area... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This system is in use in the Los Angeles area in California by the LA county sheriff's department. The camera system randomly grabs license plate #'s and runs them through a database for various offenses & has been noted as leading to the apprehending of several wanted criminals & recovery of stolen cars. As far as I know it's not yet in very wide deployment, but be assured it will be coming.

  100. Automated Law Enforcement by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does automated law enforcement give anyone else the shivers?

    There's a lot to be said for the discretion of those executing the law.

    Pretty soon, it'll be like credit card bills - you'll get a monthly statement for all your minor infractions, or if you don't have any, a "fee" for not generating enough revenue for the government.
    Until they come up with something to nail you for: "The red-light cameras we installed caught you sitting at a green light for two seconds while you were adjusting your radio - $20"

  101. Ownership by bostongraf · · Score: 1

    Ultimately, the government has a trump card on all arguments against the use of this technology.

    They are not tracking the location of cars. They are tracking the location of PLATES. Those plates are most definitely owned BY THE STATE.

    Good luck trying to tell the government that you don't want them monitoring the location of THEIR property.

    (For the record, I'm not exactly a FAN of this routine, but there is NO WAY to get around it.)

  102. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  103. New Anti-Speeding Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things could be used to eliminate speeding over vast stretches of highway, instead of just single checkpoints like today.

    Picture two of these installed on a highway, say 100 km apart, each connected to a central computer. The computer knows exactly what time each car drove past each checkpoint, therefore if your travel time was less than 1 hour, then they know you were exceeding 100 km/h for some or all of your journey.

    It would not save you if you slow down as you pass the cameras. You have to slow down for the entire distance between them.