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

Scary

[Anonymous Coward]

First they store it for 2 years.. which is terrifying enough.. but we all know that will become 3 years.. then 4.. and before we know it, they'll be storying license plate scans for centuries.

At least future historians will have detailed records on who drove over Interstate 15 in southwest Utah in the 21's century. Of course they'll probably assume the plates represent our names or something..

Re:Scary

[aurispector]

"Papers, please! Pick up that can, citizen. You may not pass checkpoint until you pass government check!"

Amazing how many people are eager to throw themselves into the the arms of a totalitarian government. "No expectation of privacy" has morphed into "constant recording of activities".

Re:Scary

[Culture20]

Hell yes, government:bad. The worst google could do with the information is have a rogue employee use it to stalk people. The worst the government could do? Use your imagination. Government is supposed to be restricted for good reasons.

Re:Scary

[KingMotley]

When it is legal for me to remove my license plates, or to encrypt them with a key that changes hourly, then perhaps you have a point.

Re:Scary

[NeutronCowboy]

Too bad I used my mod points yesterday. The responses to your post are all very good summaries of why your example misses the huge differences between the government and Google.
1) License plates are mandatory accessories on a car. There is no way for me to legally avoid this type of monitoring, unless I decide to walk. Compare that with Google: I can easily encrypt the signal, and carry on just as before.
2) It is the government. I am forced to do business with the government. I can choose to ignore Google. Yay Noscript!
3) The government enforces its terms at gun point. A dispute with Google involves at worst some fines.
4) Government is full of people who love to tell me what I should do. Google is merely interested in finding out what I'm doing.

So yes, Google=Fine, Government = Bad. Let me know if you still don't understand the differences between what the Government is and can do, and what Google is and can do.

Change of Scope

[Anonymous Coward]

Vehicle license plates exist as a means for police to identify a car when the need arises. Now we have automated systems that are capable of identifying EVERY car, and the police want to deploy these systems. This will result in millions of car license plate database searches on law abiding citizens with no probable cause. In addition, the police will record the time and place where each vehicle was spotted to develop a search-able intelligence database. They can perform queries on the database to identify frequent travellers, and harass them when their suspicions are aroused. Many police agencies are already doing this and it needs to stop.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[bonch]

I don't know...I don't think freedom of travel and freedom from unreasonable search is being violated, as you're not being barred from travelling and you're not being searched. And I don't necessarily believe the legality of something changes simply because technology can do what humans can't. That argument of scale is the same argument the RIAA makes to differentiate P2P technology and 80s tape-trading.

I mean, I'd prefer not to be scanned, but I just don't feel like my rights are being violated if it's known that I'm driving down the freeway, after having driven through who knows how many security cameras at intersections and shown my photo ID who knows how many times just to buy beer and M-rated videogames. I'm usually an anti-government surveillance guy, but I don't feel as if I'm giving up more information than I usually do.

Not saying you're wrong or trying to argue with you. I agree with you that the storage is the real issue here, and I think two years is too long. The scanning itself just doesn't bother me for some reason. But it's possible other posters will make convincing arguments that could change my mind.

Re:Scanning versus storage

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that is very un-American of you to suggest. Do you not realize that America has the largest black market in the world? These are services offered that are vital to our economic recovery. The goal is to slowly incarcerate the suspects to compete with foreign slave labour through private prisons. We need a steady flow of prisoners in order for our economy to retain cost-efficient production and avoid employment restrictions and any threats of potential unions seeking the benefit of health insurance. Be an American and support your local slave trade!

Re:Scanning versus storage

[BlueStrat]

The idea of unmanned law enforcement sounds great until you realize that everybody being under constant surveillance is not a very American way of life, at least not in the past. Freedom-while-being-watched-to-make-sure-you-do-the-right-thing-and-punish-you-if-you-don't is not true freedom.

-----

ED-209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."

[Alarmed, Kinney quickly tosses the gun away. ED-209 steps forward and growls menacingly.]

ED-209: "You now have 15 seconds to comply."

-----

Strat

Re:Scanning versus storage

[mozumder]

No, it's still government property.

The public doesn't own government property. Government is its own independent entity. Government property is strictly governments.

The public is merely the board of directors for government that gives direction on how government may proceed.