DEA Wants To Install License Plate Scanners and Retain Data for Two Years

An anonymous reader writes with news that might make privacy advocates a bit uneasy. From the article: "Everyone driving on Interstate 15 in southwest Utah may soon have their license plate scanned by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The DEA and two sheriffs are asking permission to install stationary license plate scanners on the freeway in Beaver and Washington counties. The primary purpose would be to catch or build cases against drug traffickers, but at a Utah Legislature committee meeting Wednesday, the sheriffs and a DEA representative described how the scanners also could be used to catch kidnappers and violent criminals. That, however, wasn't the concern of skeptical legislators on the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee. They were worried about the DEA storing the data for two years and who would be able to access it."

Comments

Scanning versus storage

[bonch]

The two-year storage is really the only part that bothers me. But the actual scanning doesn't, for some reason. I guess because people see my license plate every day anyway. It's a pretty public thing already, and it's government-issued so the only data being collected that they don't already have is my location, but again, any driver on the freeway can already see me. I don't know; usually I'm against most kinds of data harvesting, but for some reason this doesn't bug me as much. I guess because driving in your vehicle is such a publicly identifiable thing anyway, and it is on government property.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Anonymous Coward]

What (kinda) worries me is when they start doing more analysis.

I imagine the technology isn't too far off (if not already here) to analyse video of and determine bad driving. Join that up with license plate scanning and a system where you are automatically ticketed on making any driving violation.

It's an interesting concept. I don't know if I'd want that or not. On a logical level it makes sense, but something about it puts me off. Obviously fines and such would need to be adjusted, as current penalties assume for every 1 violation you get away with 19 or so.. but even still, the absoluteness of it bugs me.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and it is on government property."

You meant PUBLIC property. Right?

RIGHT?

Re:Scanning versus storage

[rahvin112]

The thing you aren't seeing and that isn't explained in the article is why. They want to cross-reference vehicles that come through the area multiple times and don't live in the area. They will then use this in a probable cause warrant.

Think about that and what it means.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[jamstar7]

The obvious implications bother me. When I was driving from northwest Arizona to western Colorado on a regular basis, I regularly drove I-15. Interstate highways are supposed to make interstate movement easier, right? So driving interstate now makes me a suspected drug smuggler? Just fucking lovely. How many thousands of vehicles drive I-15? Of those thousands, how many are drug smugglers? And how many of those drug smugglers are smart enough to change vehicles between runs?

Re:Scanning versus storage

[mirix]

For me it's more... when you only had physical 'watchers', there was some amount of privacy via lack of manpower.

However, once it's electronic, there can really be no end to it, and there can be many installations. Then computers can then use the data to map out everything you do, something that couldn't be done in the past without the 'suspect' (victim?) noticing they were being tailed.
The other thing is once the system is up, the only difference between tracking suspects or parolees and everyone, is processing power.

Maybe it's a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. Seems to me if it's important enough, put a few agents out there and scan the plates manually. Might help the unemployment numbers too. It would probably end up being cheaper than whatever no bid contract they pay for the limited system would cost, and would keep it limited.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Anonymous Coward]

No court in America would think that simply driving on a road was probable cause for a search without other details (drugs laying around in plain view, driver acting intoxicated, etc). I don't think this data will be used for that. I think it will simply be the camel's nose from the old saying "Once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of the camel will soon follow." Tomorrow the scanners go up on the interstate, next week they go up on local highways, next month they go up on all major roads. Only then will you see cases that begin with, "We followed your license plate via scanners from your house here in the good part of town, all the way over to the bad part of town where it circled around a few times, and then back to your house. Based on the reputation of that area as a place where prostitutes and drug dealers hang out, we're executing a probable cause search of your house and vehicle for prostitutes, drugs, and money."

It might not even start out like that. It might start out as something like, "John Doe, presidential candidate, was seen going to the bad part of town multiple times one week. Now, why would someone that lives in a fancy gated community want to go all the way down there late at night?"

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Artifakt]

People see license plates all the time, but they don't normally stand there logging them for hours each day. There's lots of data where this sort of distinction matters.

For example, I'm a type 2 Diabetic. I voluntarily disclose this, and that I use a blood glucose meter and take Metformin for this condition. Now suppose somebody, perhaps working for my insurer, wants to check such data as what dates I refill my prescription, and what times of day I test, how regularly, and so on. There's several potential problems here. First, if my insurer wants to claim that I have been getting refills irregularly, it's in their interest if there's a law keeping me from stockpiling my medications, because that might be an alternate explanation for why I might go more than 1 month between refilling a 30 day supply.. Sure enough, there are an increasing number of drugs which don't have any known abuse potential, but that the prescriptions can only be filled for 1 month at a time, by law. The Insurers are not just interested in writing their rules so they don't pay out for multiple months at a time, but getting states to actually pass laws, which suggests to some of us that they really are trying to track such data in hopes of denying more claims. Then the test strips and lancets themselves are available in at least most states without a prescription. Again, there's no real abuse potential there, but again, there have been insurance lobbyists advocating making these items prescription only.
          This sort of data is routinely observed by at least one other person (the clerk) any time I buy these medications. There are other people, such as my doctor and the pharmacy staff who may sometimes ask me if I'm testing regularly or remind me about proper use of the test kit and meds. But the insurer isn't just some party that presumably has my interests at heart in the general sense, they are an entity which might want to deny a claim if my disease gets worse, by claiming that it's my own fault for not following all the instructions adequately. The insurers are also people who have already lobbied for laws which would make my life a little more difficult. (For example, if I have to get a prescription for test strips and lancets, then I have to contact my doctor if my meter breaks and tell him what type I buy as a replacement before I can start using it.). So, the individual data is not kept particularly private. I'd let my doctor or pharmacist see the meter and page through the log stored on its SD card pretty much on request, and if I have the insurer pay for my meds, they presumably can see what dates I've filled the prescriptions and could track them easily. Yet, there's still problems with the access they already have, and piecing together that data gives them the power to do some things that can be a real pain.Piecing together more data is likely to open up new areas for abuse.
       

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Fjandr]

Step up when bad cops do bad things and maybe people will respect good cops more. Until then, you can continue to expect this sort of opinion of you profession in general.

Even if you're an otherwise good cop, unless you're willing to out bad cops you are the problem.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[umghhh]

There is no slippery slope fallacy - compare prison populations in US and other developed countries or take China or Cuba if you like and think about the result. If you have law makers and authorities that are so proactive in increasing prison populations and supporting prison industry then it is is indeed worrying if the authorities start having means of controlling everybody everywhere at anytime. There must be limits to that which at the same time allow catching criminals after all they use modern technology too. It must be guaranteed that authorities (or evil FB like companies) cannot abuse the data. So rules must be introduced (OMG communist!!!!) that prevent that. There are indeed cases where police can use help of such data: I think two years ago in Germany there was a guy that (for fun!!!) threw a big piece of wood from the highway bridge killing a woman sitting in a driving car aside of her husband and in front of her kid. They found the guy by looking at positioning data from telecom companies. That was a good use. The bad use must be limited - I suppose limiting use and allowing it only in certain cases is the way to go. I guess authorities will cease majority of senseless actions if they notice they just does not bring anything. Still I guess US is not a country where such development should go about with ease. You are on a slippery slope or maybe you are already far enough. That is not to say that you are on a level of NK but it must worry you if a landlord can be expropriated because his tenant had a joint in his apartment.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[sjames]

I'm a little concerned about the scanning. I am fine with it if they consider it important enough to station cops to read the numbers off, but I don't want to make it so easy it becomes ubiquitous. The difficulty is more or less an intrinsic test of genuine need.

Along with the legally recognized expectation of privacy, we have a less recognized expectation of disinterest. Walking down the sidewalk in NY, I have no expectation of privacy, but I do have an expectation of disinterest. That is, I can expect that nobody who sees me really cares and they won't likely remember in 5 minutes..

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Lumpy]

That will never happen. All cops are dirty. Because the honest cops that don't rat on the dirty ones or demand they are fired are dirty for not doing it.

What the chief wont listen to you? the press certainly will.

If you dont turn in your "brothers" then you are as dirty as they are. Thus all cops are dirty.

Re:Mormons Politicizing Religious Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

> "America is controlled by Mormons"

No, silly! Everyone knows that America is controlled by corporations.

Sorry Utah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Utah, but I think I will bypass your state from now on (if you allow this). All we need is more "Big Brother" surveillance of innocent people who may want to keep their whereabouts private, and for perfectly legitimate (and legal) reasons! Tracking plates on the US/Mexico border is only slightly less onerous, but hundreds of miles away from the immediate border area? That's simply frightful! FWIW, I was once the subject of a Mafia "contract". Needless to say, having my whereabouts known, and for no good reason, and that can be suborned by those whose interests are inimical to mine, is not something I would like to have happen... :-(

Cut to the chase

[Okian Warrior]

How will this turn out? Let's see.

Eenie meenie, chili beanie...

1) DEA installs license plate scanners.
2) Police stop vehicles which fit the profile of drug smuggling.
3) Years pass. Many, many innocent people's rights are violated
4) Police find drugs in some stopped car, arrests are made.
5) Plaintiffs complain that police had no right to stop car based on profile
6) ACLU gets involved. Appeal goes to federal court.
7) Federal court overturns conviction on grounds that there was no probable cause (or not - this is Utah, after all)
8) Case is presented to supreme court. Supreme court upholds 4th amendment, license scanning is not probable cause.

End result: Many innocent people have their rights violated, some arrests are made. About a million dollars are spent on one case to bring it to the supreme court, ten years of some person's life is lost fighting it, and eventually the DEA is told to stop. During this time, drug smuggling is reduced by less than one part in a million. Millions of dollars spent on the system are wasted when the system is dismantled.

For once, can we please just cut to the chase? Just stop these idiots from the beginning and a whole lot of people will save a whole lot of effort, money, time, and grief.

Re:Cut to the chase

[El Torico]

Spending a million dollars is worth it if it prevents just one child's life from being destroyed by a marijuana joint as long as that money is spent on my agency or company.

There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Cut to the chase

[CodeBuster]

For once, can we please just cut to the chase? Just stop these idiots from the beginning and a whole lot of people will save a whole lot of effort, money, time, and grief.

Yes, but then what would all those DEA people do for a living? Besides, the bureaucrats and private prison operators have budgets and contracts to protect. The "War on Drugs" is big business after all, and not just for the cartels. It would all be funny, in a farcical sort of way, if the real life consequences weren't so deadly serious.

Ballot Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box

[l0ungeb0y]

Ahh yes, the ardent American Citizen, sitting there able to do nothing while the value of his shitty little Dollar drops year after year, his bankers and his own Government are blatantly and openly lying and stealing from him and doing and end run around his precious Constitutional Rights with Wars on Ideas -- and he clings to his gun saying "I can at least defend myself from them if it gets to that" -- ignoring the fact that his Government has enough weaponry to quickly turn any Popular Revolt with their tiny pea shooters into a grease stain in short order -- and even then, every Congressional session has new talk of attempts to enact laws to outlaw or further restrict ownership of peashooters -- just be on the safe side, it is after all best not to take risks.

What will it take for the Ardent American to use his precious armaments? Government Cameras up his ass? Face it -- you are a slave. Go to school, pass your exams, indenture yourself to a College, get a job, be useful, be productive, consume and create more consumers to replace you.

Your rights, your guns, your "freedom" -- are little more than a novelty meant to humor you.
More wars on American Citizens have been enacted in the last 30 years than wars against enemy nations.

Enough already!

[blindseer]

Time to get rid of the DEA. They just keep thinking up new ways to pry into our lives with the intent of ensuring the purity of our bodily fluids.

Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent on these yahoos every year and what do we get out of it. Money spent so they can set quotas on the production of medicines and now we have shortages of common medications for the treatment of pain, cancer, and mental disorders.

This has become very personal for me. Because of an injury from military service I get my pain medications from the VA clinic in town. Since it is a controlled substance the physician can only write a prescription for 30 days. The VA clinic has a nice system where I just go into the office and fill out a form so the physician can rubber stamp the prescription for the next month. I have it pretty good, relatively. I feel sorry for those that don't have their meds handed out by the government.

I can only imagine what someone else, someone that has to get the same meds by a private entity. Would they have to schedule a face to face examination with their physician every month? How much would that cost them? Would any insurance company cover the cost of providing a monthly supply of narcotics for a condition that existed prior to signing up for their plan?

I've heard all kinds of horror stories of people that happened to be caught with a pill bottle, or just a single pill, that a friend or relative had forgotten and was left in the person's car, bag, or apartment. Being in the possession of a controlled substance is a felony unless prescribed by a physician. Do we want people to get sent to prison for five years because they tried to return the medicine that grandma left behind when she went to see her grandkids?

FTFA:

"I'll be quite frank with you," Oda told Newcomb. "A lot of us in Utah don't trust the federal government."

I don't either. They claim they won't use this database for the purpose of enforcing misdemeanors and traffic violations. What keeps them from breaking this promise?

I can see this already, someone will get the great idea of placing two of these along a well traveled route. The computers controlling these two stations will be connected together to compute the average speed of anyone that crosses these two points. Automatic speeding tickets will get mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that would happen if these license plate scanners get installed.

Re:Enough already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think the underworld will move on to other things if drugs are decriminalized? ie. more occurrences of robberies, home invasions, etc... I'm happier with the drug people doing their drug smuggling and leaving me alone.

I've got a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Defund the DEA. People are going to get high. The only real questions are:

1. How much will it cost to treat the health problems that causes?

2. Who is going to get the money from selling the drugs?

With DEA in place, the answer to question (2) is that the DEA splits it with cartels and some small fish while raping the taxpayers. The health costs are born by everybody else. Tax the drugs, and the money will go to the government. Drugs (in the absence of health problems) become a profit center for the people instead of a cost center. Of course some drugs will cause health problems. The rational answer to that is to figure out how much it costs to treat them, and tax the drugs enough to pay for them. There might be some cases where the tax isn't enough to cover the health costs without re-creating the black market. I really don't know. Does the tax on alcohol, a perfectly legal substance, come anywhere near paying for the health problems it causes? What about the health problems it helps (yep, it's good in moderation). Some drugs will bring in more money than they cost in health problems (pot). Others will probably not bring in much money, but will cause serious health problems (meth). It ought to be possible to balance the cash cows against the losers. First things first though:

Defund the DEA, reduce the national debt, quit wasting time, money, and lives.

Re:I've got a better idea

[umghhh]

I do not think there is an easy solution even if I am for legalisation. The way Dutch were was OK - they were relaxed about the drugs themselves there were even police officers in discos testing for purity so that suckers that consumed party pills did not end up as a said cost center. This all accompanied by education based on information and not scaremongering - kids are not stupid so if you tell them they are gonna die after one joint (silly lie) and get addicted after one meeting with meth or coke (true) they will see first to be a lie it is and assume second is too - possibly endangering themselves by basing their information on lies and misinformation. The decriminalization must also deal with the sick that are created by use of drugs if need be also with force.

The decriminalization of drugs is not a silver bullet and anyway lots of work is needed on all levels - it does not help to have drugs decriminalized in one part of the country - the drug tourists are a problem not only because they are criminals around drug legalized oasis and thus are an issue with neighbouring jurisdiction but also because in large concentrations they are a nuisance for locals - that is why the Dutch are so pissed off that they allow selling of drugs only to residents now.

In general I do not believe DEA can be dissolved. There is too much business there, too much power. The result is that the cost can only be removed when the state is strapped of the cash enuff to scrap DEA too. The bad thing about this scenario of scrapping the shitty agency is that there will be no money to deal with long term effects of DEA abuse as well as with 'normal' problems other substances (alco) also cause. So no silver bullet and uphill battle against demons from DEA. Good luck fighting that and 'tough on crime' hysteria as well as others. You need a shake up and that is unlikely. Bend and spread...

Re:Mormons Politicizing Religious Goals

[MalachiK]

America is controlled by Morons. There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Scary

[SlippyToad]

ut license plate scanning on interstates doesn't even bother me - in the slightest. Doesn't "terrify" me at all - no matter how long they store the data.

Sir Frog, you'll be boiling soon enough,.

Re:Scary

[i286NiNJA]

No the problem with papers please was that they could pull you over for any reason and then ask to see paperwork describing the purpose of your trip. That sucks, and it was unimaginable to americans once upon a time, now the police just regularly break the rules here by pulling over first and deciding why 2nd, if you tell them where you're going is none of their business when they ask, you're sure to be subject to unlawful search many places in the country, if the search turns up nothing you're getting framed up anyhow. traveling papers we don't bother with the papers part. I say law enforcement gets no new help until they demonstrate they're mature enough for the power they already have and that's the day that cops step forward and report those who "make mistakes" as a matter of course doing their job daily. M I am told by a friend in moscow that they can detain you without reason for 8 days. i believe ukraine just got rid of their traveling papers within the past 10 years... so no your version of why it was bad is totally wrong, the history is too fresh for you to revise it yet sorry. It's human nature to want things that make your job easier but since we don't have some sort of high tech space soviets to use as an example of who we're not supposed to be we'll give LE all the power they want with new tools. Four legs good two legs better right?

Re:Scary

[Fnord666]

Funny how people will defend Google for taking publicly available information from unsecured wifi

Because Google is not the government. Despite what some people think about corporations and the government these days, Google does not have the ability to deprive you of your life or your freedom. The Government on the other hand can and does these days. Big difference.