Slashdot Mirror


ACLU Questions Privacy of License Plate Scanners

coastal984 writes with news that the American Civil Liberties Union is launching a nation-wide effort to find out how police departments are using and retaining information gathered from license plate scanners. They've sent FOIA requests to departments in 38 states, as well as the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Transportation. "It’s not an exaggeration to say that in ten years there will be [automatic license plate readers] just about everywhere, making detailed records of every driver’s every movement, and storing it for who knows how long. In some cases, we know that the worst-case scenario—vast databases with records of movements of massive numbers of people—is already happening. To avoid this fate we need to convince the nation and our lawmakers to take action on this serious threat to our liberty. And to make a convincing case, we need to know a lot more about the problem as it stands. Last year, most people didn’t know why we should call our mobiles 'trackers' instead of phones; there was very little public information on how police departments were using our phones to track our location. The ACLU stepped in and spearheaded a massive public records project, bringing together affiliates from every part of the country, obtaining documents that showed how police nationwide were getting access to our intimate information without judicial oversight."

246 comments

  1. Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looks like Steve Jobs was on to something - except, of course, that it's just as easy to be tracked when you're the only car that doesn't have plates.

  2. Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To avoid this fate we need to convince the nation and our lawmakers to take action on this serious threat to our liberty.

    ... you're shitting me, right? Asking politicians to not make laws which restrict the freedoms of their people is like asking a mako shark to please not take a chunk out of my ass - neither is capable of understanding either your request, or reason in general.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How else are you going to do this? The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring. We after all do vote for these politicians. Might as well ask them to do something for us.

    2. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not quite right, and does a disservice to politicians who actually do give a damn about civil liberties, e.g. Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.

      For instance, back in 2002 the Bush administration created the Total Information Awareness project, where the NSA was going to basically intercept all Internet traffic in the US and build profiles of everybody based on what they saw. After years of agitating by the usual suspects (including the ACLU and EFF) Congress defunded the agency.

      However, what the NSA appears to have done in response to Congress expressly saying that they shouldn't do this: (1) Rename the program. (2) Make the whole thing classified. (3) Move the budget lineitem to a different spending category. (4) Continue as if nothing had happened. So the problem isn't exactly all politicians being power-hungry bastards, it's that power-hungry presidents (and both Bush and Obama are involved in this, it isn't a partisan thing) can work with a power-hungry national security state to do whatever the heck they want without the approval of Congress.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      That's not quite right, and does a disservice to politicians who actually do give a damn about civil liberties, e.g. Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.

      For instance, back in 2002 the Bush administration created the Total Information Awareness project, where the NSA was going to basically intercept all Internet traffic in the US and build profiles of everybody based on what they saw. After years of agitating by the usual suspects (including the ACLU and EFF) Congress defunded the agency.

      However, what the NSA appears to have done in response to Congress expressly saying that they shouldn't do this: (1) Rename the program. (2) Make the whole thing classified. (3) Move the budget lineitem to a different spending category. (4) Continue as if nothing had happened. So the problem isn't exactly all politicians being power-hungry bastards, it's that power-hungry presidents (and both Bush and Obama are involved in this, it isn't a partisan thing) can work with a power-hungry national security state to do whatever the heck they want without the approval of Congress.

      Kind of pointless to bring up names like Paul and Feingold in the same breath that you describe the exact state of helplessness we are currently in, as if either one of them are in a position to actually do anything. Oh wait a second, I almost forgot. Technically, they ARE in a position to actually do something, and yet here we are, still helpless.

      Kind of makes you wonder why we're even having this conversation as if monitoring of citizens has really changed at all in the last 50 years by No Such Agency. They've only gotten more efficient about it, that's all.

    4. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring.

      Actually, it it doesn't; the only reason the federals get to take carte blanche with regard to ignoring Constitutional limitations is because they hold the states hostage via extortion, i.e. "pass this draconian law / allow us to enforce this unconstitutional law in your state, or we'll pull funding from your critical programs." Personally, I don't imagine any elected President would have the balls to actually pull funding, especially during an election year, but the threat seems to be sufficient to keep the states enslaved, er, in line.

      The only out I see at this point is to return power to the states by producing what we need on our own, without federal dollars. Barring that, we're screwed.

      We after all do vote for these politicians.

      Yup, and it matters not, a single iota. Besides, voting out one lobbyist-controlled, billionaire criminal to replace them with another lobbyist-controlled, billionaire criminal hasn't worked for us yet; what's the point in continuing to flog that poor dead horse?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically, they ARE in a position to actually do something, and yet here we are, still helpless.

      As a private citizen, how is Russ Feingold in a position to do anything? His defeat in 2010 shows that being the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act, and taking other stands in defense of civil liberties, is not particularly popular.

    6. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by uncqual · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring.

      Actually, it it doesn't

      There's nothing in the BoR or constitutional case law that even remotely prevents this sort of monitoring. State issued license plates are (in most cases) required on vehicles driven on public streets. They are, and must, remain visible to all. A police officer, your neighbor, or a random guy on the street can see them. There is no expectation of privacy of your license number. Anyone can take a picture or video of your car, and its license number, on a public street - they can even use a telephoto lens. They can do almost anything they like with the images, including extracting license numbers from the images.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    7. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of pointless to bring up names like Paul and Feingold in the same breath that you describe the exact state of helplessness we are currently in, as if either one of them are in a position to actually do anything. Oh wait a second, I almost forgot. Technically, they ARE in a position to actually do something, and yet here we are, still helpless.

      Kind of pointless to take a single step, since it's a journey of a thousand miles.

    8. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Hatta · · Score: 1, Troll

      Ron Paul doesn't care about civil liberties. He just thinks civil liberties should be violated at the state, not federal, level.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A police officer, your neighbor, or a random guy on the street can see them. There is no expectation of privacy of your license number. Anyone can take a picture or video of your car, and its license number, on a public street - they can even use a telephoto lens. They can do almost anything they like with the images, including extracting license numbers from the images.

      OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.

      In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.

      There's nothing in the BoR or constitutional case law that even remotely prevents this sort of monitoring.

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

      Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?

      Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?

      Then there's the Sixth Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Kind of hard to do when the "witness" is a software program that is incapable of distinguishing an individual human from their plate number, isn't it? Seriously, how's that supposed to work?

      Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.

      Lemme know how that one works out.

      While not directly stated in the Constitution, the "presumption of innocence" has been established as the basis of our laws for quite sometime, and is backed by precedent: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." - Decision, Coffin v. United States

      Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      You can ask all you want, it will fall on deaf ears. Money talks.

    11. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why is plate scan already in use?

    12. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I just saw a brief blurb on the local news in LA, that the state troopers down here, were looking closely at peoples' plates to see if they were obscured....due I guess to some problems lately with the traffic cams catching them, and I think I heard some police cars are now being outfitted here with plate readers.

      I'm really wanting to get some of the high powered infrared LEDs and rig them up around my license plate...but with a switch in the cabin, to be able to turn them 'off' when appropriate...near a live cop.

      Hmm....sounds like a fun weekend project!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul doesn't care about civil liberties. He just thinks civil liberties should be violated at the state, not federal, level.

      Well, at least at the state level, the people have more of a 'say' in the matters, and can affect change more efficiently.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by s.petry · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fries with that Red herring?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?

      I think that would be a reasonable thing to dispute, especially if a specific person was not being observed - just every car that passes a camera.

      Now when the system becomes so complete and integrated that you can "virtually" follow a person around, we should apply the same rules that apply now to physically following someone around. But AFAIK, a cop can follow you around if they want.

      But no one is coming into your house, searching you person, or even rifling through your personal effects. A camera is taking a picture of your license plate, which is there specifically to let your car be identified to law enforcement.

      Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?

      If a cop is tailing you on the highway and you "slip up", is that self-incriminating? Can you explain to me how a camera is different than a cop's eyes in a way that is meaningful in this discussion?

      Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.

      This is settled law. Do you ask for the murder weapon to take the stand so that it can be cross-examined? The cop who found the bloody knife and found your DNA on it is the accuser - not the knife or the DNA test itself. The database is the evidence, not the accuser.

      Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'

      Is it OK for a cop to walk down a line of parked cars and check them all for valid registrations? Why isn't he just presuming that they are all valid? Is it OK for a cop to be posted outside of a large event, just in case? Why is he there? Isn't everyone at the event presumed innocent?

      Presumption of innocence is a concept limited to the treatment of a defendant in a court of law - trying to extrapolate it to broader society leads to some pretty odd places.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think the courts would be sympathetic toward the police if, say, they posted someone in a car right outside of your door to follow you whenever you leave your property. Certainly that wouldn't pass muster for the framers of the constitution if someone did the same thing when people walked/rode horses to get around. This is only different in that the scanners are either mobile or at fixed locations, so rather than continual surveillance you have discrete data points, some of which are random wherever you pass a mobile scanner. But it's still surveillance w/o a warrant.

      As far as people taking video/images of your license number, it seems that most of the time I see those images the license number is blurred out. I'm presuming that there's some legal liability or no one would do that.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    17. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      I just saw a brief blurb on the local news in LA, that the state troopers down here, were looking closely at peoples' plates to see if they were obscured....due I guess to some problems lately with the traffic cams catching them, and I think I heard some police cars are now being outfitted here with plate readers.

      Awhile back officers in Texas started ticketing people who had license plate frames that obscured too much of the plate--typically the "Texas" portion. I suspect it's to make it easier for the red light cameras to verify the state info as well as the license number.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    18. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.

      Witness, I have but one question for you: SELECT `full_name` FROM `plate_recognitions` WHERE `location` = "Crime Scene" AND `timestamp` BETWEEN "2012-07-31 23:30:00" AND "2012-08-01 00:00:00" ORDER BY `timestamp`

      Let the record show that the system positively identified the defendant.

      (Seriously, though, we're getting to that point. I'd imagine it could be done in a way believable to a jury via a software engineer proxy to the database.)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    19. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.
        In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.

      A random person may not, but random corporations do. In fact many stores like Target and some of the malls already do.

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

      Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?

      Unfortunately surveillance has never been considered a search. Would you interpret a police office following you around as a search. I wouldnt and the courts havent.

      Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?

      All I call say is you have a strange definition of self-incrimination. A cop can follow you all day and book you any time you slip or do something against the law. There is nothing unconstitutional about.

      Then there's the Sixth Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Kind of hard to do when the "witness" is a software program that is incapable of distinguishing an individual human from their plate number, isn't it? Seriously, how's that supposed to work?
       

      It doesnt mean that the number plate cannot be read by a software. Only that a number plate read by software cannot be used as a witness or evidence on its own.

      Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.

      More drama, instead of a meaning argument.

      While not directly stated in the Constitution, the "presumption of innocence" has been established as the basis of our laws for quite sometime, and is backed by precedent: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." - Decision, Coffin v. United States

      Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'

      There is no constitutional right to travel, expect for members of congress to/from the congress. The government cannot prevent you/limit you from traveling to any part of the United States. But that is it, there is nothing about harassment or anything. And I dont see how tracking systems can prevent you from traveling to any part of the US. So tracking systems do not violate any laws as far as I can see.

    20. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm not looking for physically obscured....

      But from what I've seen...the infared LEDs, while invisible to the naked human eye...will basically 'blind' many cameras...so, hoping that might make me look fine to human cop eyes...but invisible to the cameras.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by firewrought · · Score: 2

      Ron Paul doesn't care about civil liberties. He just thinks civil liberties should be violated at the state, not federal, level.

      Well, at least at the state level, the people have more of a 'say' in the matters, and can affect change more efficiently.

      Good points, both of you.

      Maybe it's because I'm from the south, but it seems like the federal judiciary does a better job protecting civil rights than the state judiciaries do. It would be interesting to make a list of all the cases where a federal court has overturned a state decision on a civil-rights related case. I'd bet the a substantial percentage of them worked to increase effective freedoms rather than decrease them. Of course, that may be an artifact of the appeals process or some other phenomenon... it doesn't mean the feds are fundamentally better decision makers.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    22. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cute how you think any of that matters. Dude man... it's been forever since the laws applied to the lawmakers.

    23. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by uncqual · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Your understanding of the Constitution is obviously at odds with virtually all precedent. Perhaps you're living in an alternate universe.

      OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.

      Nope. You might be able to get a restraining order against them that includes not tracking you -- but generally only if there's some other factor involved (such as explicit or implicit threats). Private detectives working on, for example, workman comp cases track, follow, photograph people all the time.

      The one exception is that you mention "regardless of whether or not I am in public". It is true that a random person can't legally come into your house to watch you eat dinner without your approval. Nor, generally, can the police without the approval of the court. The license plate scanners are only looking at publicly visible plates so the only part of your statement that is correct is irrelevant to the topic at hand and is a red herring. Nice try.

      In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.

      Yes, the government has more power than a private citizen, so you are correct in that regard. But, again, this works against you. For example, as a private citizen I can not detain you, charge you with a crime, try you, convict you, and imprison you for life - but various government actors can, and do, regularly. A police officer has just as much right to observe your behavior without your approval as a private citizen does.

      It is true that if I break into your house, without coordination with law enforcement officials, and observe that you have bodies of a bunch of missing children piled in your bedroom, I can go tell the police and they can then use my information to get a search warrant and what they find is admissible. If, however, a police officer entered your house w/o cause and without a warrant, the fact that the bodies were found would likely be inadmissible (under the exclusionary rule - an invention of the SCOTUS to deter abuses by law enforcement). Note, however, that if police break into your house because of an immediate threat, such as smoke billowing from the roof and someone screaming inside, and observe the bodies while looking for the screaming person, the bodies and their location would likely be admissible.

      Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?

      Not worth responding to, but I will anyway. NO. Self incrimination is requiring you to speak/testify in a way that will tend to incriminate you. Even things that you said voluntarily and were recorded (such as voice mails you left long before arrest or even before you were a suspect) or a videotaped confession after you were properly informed of your rights can be used against you in a court of law. Nor is the Fifth Amendment a restriction on the actions of anyone else. The Fifth Amendment doesn't even, for example, prevent the government from taking a DNA sample from you with a court order (which are routinely granted) -- because giving up your DNA is not incriminating yourself - your DNA is physical evidence.

      Really? So the Fourth Amendment does not state that "The right of the people to be secure in their person

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    24. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until of course they see it's obscured, have it recorded as being obscured one moment and then readable the next after they're following you, and when consequently looking around your plate finding the illegal plate-obscuring device. Said device which was not purchased but homemade to specifically block your plate from being read whenever you so please, such as running red lights or avoiding toll-road fees... all of which doesn't exactly work in your favour in the courts. I don't think the courts like premeditated illegal activity.

      And yes, they would be able to tag you for illegal activity, since plate scanner blockers are illegal, and the cop specifically saw said blocker in action.

      But no, you go and make that on the weekend for shits and giggles... let me know how that works out for you.

    25. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      If enough people get mad, they will comply.

      It's the first part that's the problem.

    26. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up if I could. I am pretty sure your post will get lost in all the screaming.

    27. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "" That's not quite right, and does a disservice to politicians who actually do give a damn about civil liberties, e.g. Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.""

      And is that before, or after he desolves the department of justace, along with the departmnet of education, ineterior, energy, and causes a depression that dwarfs the great depression as he puts us back onto the gold standard thus devaulating our curancy by a factor of 10 or more?

    28. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      But I'm wondering...do any of the laws specify that they can't be obscured for human eyes....?

      Or does it just say maybe cannot be obsured from plain sight....which they would not be since they are quite visible to normal light sensing apparatus....like humans...

      Do any of the laws specify it also has to be machine readable?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by heidkamp · · Score: 1
      Stakeouts and trailing cars don't require a warrant. If the police want to hang out on your street all day and follow you around, they can do that. This issue was discussed when the court was ruling on whether GPS tracking required a warrant.

      So the courts WOULD be sympathetic if

      they posted someone in a car right outside of your door to follow you whenever you leave your property

      The difference is that stakeouts/surveillance require proactive, labor intensive activity (you need 1 or more people to follow an identified target) and newer methods are wide nets that capture everybody preemptively.

      I'm not pro-big brother, but in general what happens on public roads (and in view of public roads) is considered fair game. What is changing is the ability to capture and store that information on a large scale, and the impacts on personal privacy.

    30. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must remain visible to a person. Not necessarily to cameras... Ever see what an IR LED looks like to a CCD sensor? Ever wonder what a high-intensity LED looks like to one? The bloom is large, to say the least. Now rig up a plate frame ringed with them, powered by the vehicle's battery. Your plate will be obscured to any non-film cameras, and film cameras are expensive to run for automated traffic stuff.

    31. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      Can you explain to me how a camera is different than a cop's eyes in a way that is meaningful in this discussion?

      Easy. There are insufficient police officers to tail every person at all times. Would you be alright with a cop following you every time you leave the house, everywhere you go until you arrive at a destination? That is the key difference with "everywhere surveillance". Combine this with the fact that ever increasing laws ever increase the odds that you have broken SOME law SOMEWHERE along the way, means that nearly everyone is a criminal. This doesn't mean everyone goes to jail, just that everyone must live in fear of government.

      FWIW, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not particularly concerned with cameras and monitoring (even drones and such) at the moment, but I recognize that long term, it's a huge net loss to freedom and it will certainly be abused. As technology improves, the abuse will worsen. The only way it does not is if police and government avoid corruption, and we all know that is not going to happen.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    32. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by uncqual · · Score: 1
      Actually, in California, that would be illegal (emphasis added):

      V.C. 5201(2)(g) A casing, shield, frame, border, product, or other device that obstructs or impairs the reading or recognition of a license plate by an electronic device operated by state or local law enforcement, an electronic device operated in connection with a toll road, high-occupancy toll lane, toll bridge, or other toll facility, or a remote emission sensing device, as specified in Sections 44081 and 44081.6 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be installed on, or affixed to, a vehicle.

      I've not looked up any other states' laws, but I'll bet California isn't the only one with a similar provision.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    33. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought money should go only up the later ( city -> county -> state -> fed) and never down.

    34. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, my mod points expired last night and I haven't gotten more yet.

      Fortunately, your post is at 3 and long enough to stand out, so even without further mods it won't get lost. :)

    35. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by overlordofmu · · Score: 1

      Russ is a patriot for voting against that unconstitution bill.

      However, he voted against it in 2001, and was re-elected in 2004 and didn't lose his seat until 2010. You cannot blame his vote against that illegal bill in 2001 for his loss in 2010, can you?

    36. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring.

      Actually, it it doesn't; the only reason the federals get to take carte blanche with regard to ignoring Constitutional limitations is because they hold the states hostage via extortion, i.e. "pass this draconian law / allow us to enforce this unconstitutional law in your state, or we'll pull funding from your critical programs." Personally, I don't imagine any elected President would have the balls to actually pull funding, especially during an election year, but the threat seems to be sufficient to keep the states enslaved, er, in line.

      The only out I see at this point is to return power to the states by producing what we need on our own, without federal dollars. Barring that, we're screwed.

      thing is, the local police and the courts and the feds -- all executive officials, top to bottom -- have copped an attitude that the bill of rights doesn't translate into the digital age. and courts are conflicted about it. that's why we need elected officials -- from bottom to top -- to specifically tell them that they cannot collect and retain and share this data without restriction.

      you are right that we need to stop accepting federal dollars for surveillance programs, tho. that needs to happen at the most local level possible. if you are interested in fighting ALPR at the local level, go to privacysos.org/alpr. there's some info there.

    37. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by AssholeMcGee+ · · Score: 1

      I would add that I use to, not sure about it if you still can. Go to the DMV and pay 20 bux to find out everything about you from your license plate number. I understand the more concerning issue is "them" being able to track every where you are, on top of the data they have on you, and how long they store the data. Before you ask why I would do this I worked for a PI sometimes we would get data this way, by the time you spend money driving around then asking people for info, or by tailing them (with the possibility of getting caught or exposed in both cases) it was just better to take a shot with there license plate number. ACLU should be concerned with this issue as well, someone finding out basic info on you from your plate number.

    38. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I live in the DEEP south too....much deeper, and I'd be in the Gulf.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure they ended that practice, if not post-9/11 then definitely post-Gone in 60 Seconds

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    40. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I agree with you - I am not comfortable with the idea of an all-seeing, comprehensive automated system following me around at all times with the express purpose of looking for violations.

      On the other hand, such a system that feeds back to my car and drives it for me is appealing...

      Anyway, I see these as policy decisions and not as constitutional issues. I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights that addresses database searches. And why would I? Database searches were crude, manual affairs in 1789 - not on anyone's radar. It's up to us to craft modern policy. I think what we call "privacy" issues today are mostly related to the ease of storing and searching data, and it is good to have a discussion about what is and isn't allowed. I don't think referring to the Bill of Rights is particularly helpful.

      Things I like:
      - Camera at entrance to highway that reads license plates and bills for usage. It can also check for insurance and registration status.
      - "Smart" highway that allows automated cars.
      - Cameras/sensors periodically placed on highway to monitor traffic conditions, weather, or hazards
      - Analysis of data collected above to aid in highway planning
      - Analysis of data collected above to aid in planning police activity
      - Use of data collected above in response to subpoenas

      Things I don't like:
      - Use of above data to issue driving citations automatically
      - Use of above data to automatically dispatch an officer to write driving citation without having actually witnessed it
      - Use of above data to track individuals without probable cause and without a court order

      I also think that, as much as is possible, the data should be open.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    41. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      You forgot possible angles on 'chilling effect' as it's applied to the First Amendment.

    42. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      How is that enforceable?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    43. Re:Convince Lawmakers to NOT Spy on us? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      The fact a law may be difficult to enforce does not, of course, mean it's not a valid law.

      As to how this would specifically be enforceable in the case GP proposed...

      The fine might be assessed against the owner of the car (much like a parking ticket) or equipment violation (although with much higher fines and "administrative fees") for those cases where the driver could not be proven to know the device existed. An additional crime could be put in place for manufacturing, selling, or installing such devices on either a commercial or non-commercial basis or knowingly driving a vehicle on public roads with such a device installed (even if not enabled) and make the penalties for these crimes substantial.

      A scanner in a police car could, I think, be easily programmed to be suspicious of quite a few such false IR blooms and alert the officer of the heading of a suspicious bloom around her so she could investigate (such as by looking at the captured image, giving consideration to sunlight, shade etc, ambient temperature) and form cause to pull the car over and launch additional investigation. By making the punishment for this infraction high enough, it would be a good deterrent. Since, to be effective, the IR flood must be on all the time, someone doing this would be a sitting duck and the detection would not have to be that reliable.

      More likely, so few people would bother to subvert the scanners, there would be no serious attempt to program the scanners to detect it and, more costly, train LEOs in their use. More likely, the scanners would just evolve along with the deterrent measures (in this case, a simple IR filter might suffice?).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  3. The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just privatize the registration of automobiles and the operation of the license plate tracking cameras. That way, "the free market" will take care of everything. What could possibly go wrong. Oh..., wait.

    1. Re:The solution is simple by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know you're trying to be facetious, but if you think about it, private registrations would have one major advantage over government-controlled ones, at least in terms of freedom: Being as the different private registrars would be in direct competition with one another, they would have precisely zero incentive to share information between databases.

      No data sharing = no nationwide tracking database.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:The solution is simple by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 2

      Until someone becomes the google/microsoft/apple/verizon of tracking.

    3. Re:The solution is simple by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Haha no.
      What would happens is agency 1 and 2 and 3 would all sell data to clearinghouses 4,5 and 6. The Government or anyone really would just go to the clearinghouses to get it.

    4. Re:The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? If private companies have the option of selling data they will sell the data. They're not going to leave money on the table. Data aggregators would buy it, combine all the databases and resell it to advertisers.

    5. Re:The solution is simple by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      Let's extend that to telephone companies. They will not share information between each other. *check*
      They're required by law to keep a lot of information about your calls *hmmm*
      They're required by law to provide that information to the Stasi. *hmmm*

      It's not going to work.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    6. Re:The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone's already trying to do this. Have a look at http://www.vigilantvideo.com/Product%20Data%20Sheets/LEARN_PDS.pdf

    7. Re:The solution is simple by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Uhm..., no. It should be immediately obvious that the private sector will roll over at the drop of a hat if there's profit (or favorable regulatory "consideration") in it. Christ, man, even contractual obligations like (what we laughingly refer to as) "privacy policies" are on the table when there's cash in play.

    8. Re:The solution is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're trying to be facetious, but if you think about it, private registrations would have one major advantage over government-controlled ones, at least in terms of freedom: Being as the different private registrars would be in direct competition with one another, they would have precisely zero incentive to share information between databases. No data sharing = no nationwide tracking database.

      BZZZT! Wrong! Thank you for playing. Privatization will just cost us more as the government (and anyone else who wants to track us) buys the data from the private vendors. Naive much?

  4. Swap vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing requiring the owner of the car to be the one driving it.
    It's possible to rent on RelayRides too.
    Imagine what that does to the data set.

    1. Re:Swap vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A. The point is that we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to avoid being tracked. Instead, the police et al should have to jump through hoops to track anyone.
      B. 99% of the people do not swap cars on a regular basis.

    2. Re:Swap vehicles by jc42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's nothing requiring the owner of the car to be the one driving it.

      And there was an instructive example of this that got a bit of publicity back in the 1970s, mostly in the scientific press. The reports described a researcher who had for some years had his grant applications turned down without explanation. After a lot of questioning, he finally learned that he was on a US government list of "subversives". Further questioning turned up the explanation: There was a listed "subversive" group that had regular meetings in his city, some distance from where he lived or worked. The security investigators drove down the street during the group's meetings, recording all the auto license numbers, and kept a list of the numbers that belonged to people who didn't live or work nearby. His license number was on the list of regular attendees.

      The explanation was that, after his teenage son got his driver's license, he regularly borrowed his dad's car to visit his girl friend, who lived on the same block as the "subversive" meeting. The security folks didn't notice the car was often there on days of non-meetings, only that it was there on many of the meeting days. The car was registered to the kid's father, so they concluded that the car's owner was at the meeting. Why else would he be there on meeting nights?

      Once you get on a "subversive" list, of course, it's next to impossible to get off it. This sort of thing is worth remembering when people are talking about such tracking efforts. You and I could easily be on assorted government lists for equally accurate reasons.

      These days, the word is "terrorist" rather than "subversive" or "anti-American" or whatever, but the problems are no different. There will be many false positives. Witch hunts are a universal in human society.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Swap vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also get onto the "subversives" list by being born into an ethnic group that enrolls the youngsters into the "lodge" at birth and the "lodge" gets on the list. Oh, and if they forget to tell you that you were ever a member of that "lodge", oh well.

    4. Re:Swap vehicles by jc42 · · Score: 1

      An even better way to get on a "list" is to be born into the wrong religion for where you live. Of course, most people are effectively assigned a religion at birth, and have little say in the matter until they're legally adults. Even then, in some countries you can legally be executed for changing your religion. This isn't true in the US or most of Europe, but you can find that you're still listed as a member of your birth religion even if you change or abandon it. And this gives the authorities all the excuse they need to track you at every opportunity.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    5. Re:Swap vehicles by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      There's nothing requiring the owner of the car to be the one driving it.

      Requiring, no. Probably, yes.
      If it is seen parked at your residence, and then seen on the road in between your residence and your place of work, and then later seen at your place of work....it was probably *you*.

    6. Re:Swap vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting anectdote - are there any references available? Completely not being a smartass ... I'd just like to use it in various arguments against this sort of thing if there's any documentation of it or similar cases.

  5. Where is the line? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone can sit down and write down liscense plate numbers. Citizens have done this on their own when they have suspected a house on their block of drug trafficking. Very few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

    Police officers routinely check license plates against a registry of stolen cars. Few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

    If police placed a device on my car that told them where I was 24/7, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy.

    Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own... but simply using technology to speed up the process. Where is the line? Is it the automation and efficiency? Would we be upset if automated systems were in place to catch stolen cars or those with outstanding warrants? Or is it storing of the data so that someone else can use the data later for a non-law enforcement type purpose? Would we have a problem with the system if it was incapable of storing the data?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Where is the line? by The+Raven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would be fine with the trackers if they stored only the most recent location a particular car was detected, and retrieving that location required either the registered owner to report it stolen, or a warrant.

      As long as locations can be stored forever, and retrieved at a whim, abuse will be significant.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    2. Re:Where is the line? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Anyone can sit down and write down liscense plate numbers.

      But don't waste my tax money doing it to everyone in an automated way.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to be tracked 24/7. Not a single individual wants to be tracked 24/7. Yet, our democratic republican overlords have decided to track us all 24/7.

      The line is NO ONE WANTS TO BE TRACKED.

      Very simple.

    4. Re:Where is the line? by Jaqenn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue here is that technology has progressed to a point that we're discovering that it's possible to have a situation that's never been a problem before.

      If you look at the warrant process, it's attempting to keep the government from messing with you unless they have 'a good reason'. Having a detective follow a suspect around to see what they do has, up until now, been naturally limited by funding and manpower to cases where the police had 'a good reason', and so we've never had to make up external limits on the activity.

      As police activity becomes less and less limited by funding and manpower, we have to check if we need to start imposing outside limitations instead.

      --
      You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
    5. Re:Where is the line? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      If your biggest concern with this is tax dollars, then you've missed the point.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    6. Re:Where is the line? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0

      It isn't, and my reply didn't indicate that it was. That's only part of the problem. The problem is that it affects everyone.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just like GPS trackers.

      When the police has a physical person doing it, there's limits (time, manpower, money, etc) to its coverage, but once you take away those limits, well, there's no more reasonable limitation.

      Consider the following (numbers made up!):
      You can pay a police officer $100K (salary) to write down every license plate that goes through an intersection. He works there five days a week, eight hours a day. Every year you have to pay him his salary (and with that, consider whether it's worthwhile for him to be there).

      For that same $100K, you can put 5 scanners in five different intersections. They monitor all plates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The next year, you can use $80K of that same budget to put up 4 more (assuming $20K goes into maintenance). Now you have nine. The next year, thirteen. You don't ever take any down, because they hardly cost you anything. Even after you've caught whomever you were looking for, the stay up.

      That's why automation makes things not-ok. There's little, if any, natural limitations on the surveillance.

    8. Re:Where is the line? by quintus_horatius · · Score: 2

      Maybe cheekyjohnson didn't miss the point, but is providing an alternative effective argument against tracking. It's not just an affront to liberty, it's an unjustified financial burden. Sometimes money talks louder than liberties.

    9. Re:Where is the line? by cvtan · · Score: 2

      I once had a temp job back in 1970 where I was required to sit at a designated intersection and write down 5 license plate numbers of cars going by every 15 minutes or so. I was never told why I was doing this and after a week I became uneasy and pressed for more information. They refused to explain anything and I quit. Just felt creepy.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    10. Re:Where is the line? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The difference is it now makes it possible to track your movements at all time.

      I would say even in the case of officers recording this data by hand they should have to dispose of it after some amount of time. No good can come of this type of thing, only bad.

    11. Re:Where is the line? by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMO, it comes down to the storage of the data. Regardless of the actual purpose, the storage of the data means that it can be accessed for purposes which may or may not be in the interest of the general public. More troubling is that storage of any data leaves it vulnerable to loss or theft, where it can be used by people who do not have authorization. If one thing has been proven time and again, it is that stored data has a finite chance of being lost, stolen, or leaked - and no matter what penalties you create, nothing you can do will get that data back.

      Correlation of data and movement patterns is also somewhat of a concern, but moreso for people who prefer to be anonymous in their daily lives. It's a relatively small but vocal group - at least vocal here on slashdot. One could suggest that the use of credit cards and frequent shopper cards in return for discounts is a "fair trade" of money for divulging personal information. In the case of police actions, it could be argued that the reduced need for personnel to manually monitor these things reduces overall costs and thus results in an effective reduction in taxes (example: both Maryland and Virginia have operated the past two years with roughly 12% lower tax income - about $2 Billion/yr combined; taxes really do go down sometimes). The question still must be asked - does the benefit of the "service" justify the cost.

      If the system were incapable of storing data, I suspect it would not be nearly as much of a concern, but there would still some outcry against the perceived 24/7 monitoring.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    12. Re:Where is the line? by kg261 · · Score: 2

      Yes the risk that data stored is wrong (somebody uses phony plates, clerical error, unauthorized access...) seems like a big risk to everybody. Many times have I read stories of police going to the wrong address with things turning out badly. This just seems like another thing to go wrong.

    13. Re:Where is the line? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      No. It is a non sequitor. The original question is when does tracking become an invasion of privacy. Cheeky came back with "it isn't a useful use of money". He may be right. He may be wrong. But it has nothing to do with the story or my questions.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    14. Re:Where is the line? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Anyone can sit down and write down liscense plate numbers.

      And in theory you could hire an army of people to stand on every corner and record every license plate they see - and that would be an invasion of privacy.

      The problem isn't the scanners. That's how they keep tabs on everybody's movements. The problem is that they think it's OK to keep tabs on everybody's movement.

    15. Re:Where is the line? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Anyone can sit down and write down license plate numbers.
      1 Citizens have done this on their own when they have suspected a house on their block of drug trafficking. Very few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.
      2 Police officers routinely check license plates against a registry of stolen cars. Few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.
      3 If police placed a device on my car that told them where I was 24/7, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy.
      Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own... but simply using technology to speed up the process. Where is the line? Is it the automation and efficiency? Would we be upset if automated systems were in place to catch stolen cars or those with outstanding warrants? Or is it storing of the data so that someone else can use the data later for a non-law enforcement type purpose? Would we have a problem with the system if it was incapable of storing the data?

      Actually it seems to me that having enough scanners around would make your case 2 approach case 3. They know all your movements (everyone's) and make a database of everyone's movements. If the end result is the same, only the method different why would you consider one to be a violation of your privacy and the other not?

      --
      -- QED
    16. Re:Where is the line? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      But don't waste my tax money doing it to everyone in an automated way.

      Cameras are cheap, and OCR software is even cheaper. In fact, the low cost is the problem, because it means this may soon be ubiquitous. It also would not be a "waste": an accurate database of the movement of every car would likely be very useful in solving and deterring crime. But as a society, we need to decide if the tradeoff is worth it. We also need to decide where the line is drawn. Should it be legal for me to point a camera out a window of my house and record cars that pass by? What if I then post the data to a website? What if thousands of people do this, and a comprehensive database is generated by crowdsourcing rather than created by the government? Should that be legal? Will the ACLU defend our privacy to drive around anonymously, or our right to take pictures of public spaces?

    17. Re:Where is the line? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      In fact, the low cost is the problem

      What I meant was this: I believe it's both a waste of money and an invasion of privacy to get information about nearly everyone (probably in an automated way) simply because some people are criminals. Of course, even if it didn't waste money, I'd be against it.

      Should it be legal for me to point a camera out a window of my house and record cars that pass by?

      You doing it isn't like the government doing it. The government is a very powerful group of people with far more power than you.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    18. Re:Where is the line? by rabbit994 · · Score: 1

      I think it's automation and efficiency. Just like LE used to follow people around all the time watching where they went and such. Thing about that though is it's time consuming and if you were watching for it, you could start to detect it. Now they can attach GPS to your car and now it will just call in where it is at all times. It makes decision "Should we pay someone to following around potential bad guy X?" to extremely easy. "X might be bad guy but hell, GPS is only 2000 dollars and 50 bucks a month we pay to Verizon for cellular data plan, go ahead and put it on his car. We will figure out soon enough"

      Same thing with License plate readers. While someone could sit somewhere and write them all down, that person could have messed up, it's expensive, they may not get them all. Now, point cameras everywhere, much cheaper, much more efficient and database storage is cheap, keep all the data forever.

    19. Re:Where is the line? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Maybe cheekyjohnson didn't miss the point, but is providing an alternative effective argument against tracking. It's not just an affront to liberty, it's an unjustified financial burden. Sometimes money talks louder than liberties.

      Yeah, I'm sure it'll fly at City Hall - the automated scanners are probably much cheaper to run than doing it by police walking the beat and calling in every plate they see.

      The only possible way to justify it is if they constantly check parking meters and issue tickets when they expire - the increase in revenue that way may pay for the increased overhead in personnel.

      Or were you expecting that if the police didn't buy the automated scanners, they'd stop doing it?

      (Of course, tracking someone with a tracking device is a lot different than scanning license plates - first, scanning plates doesn't identify the person, just who owns the car, and in many places with car rental services, who owns it and who drove it can be completely different (like using an IP address to identify who downloaded infringing content). The other issue is well, they don't snapshot location at all - they sample. It's possible for you to drive around your daily business and they'd never run your plate because they were never around where you parked. In Bittorrent terms, a snapshot would be using the tracker to get a list of IPs distributing infringing content. A sampling would be to join the torrent and see who connects to you to give you or ask for content.)

    20. Re:Where is the line? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      Honestly, it appears we are on the same side on this. My respectful recommendation is to drop the "waste of money" argument. Waste of money is incredibly subjective; you will likely get many law enforcement officials who will very persuasively argue its effectiveness. With access to more data than you or me, we'd lose this argument very quickly. The more effecive argument, IMHO, is that it is wrong to store data about innocent (in the legal sense) people. While there is no expectation of privacy, I certainly have an expectation that I will not be monitored without reasonable suspicion. This is the heart of the matter, and the costs are a far distant consideration.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    21. Re:Where is the line? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Waste of money is incredibly subjective

      Well, yes. That was my opinion. Besides, you can make more than one argument at a time.

      The more effecive argument, IMHO, is that it is wrong to store data about innocent (in the legal sense) people.

      That is more important to me. However, the problem is that some average people honestly believe the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" arguments (or similar ones like "to stop the terrorists" or "for the children"). They'll twist any opposing argument to make themselves look good.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    22. Re:Where is the line? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      For most things, I don't see why location should even be a data point.

      I like the idea of police having an OCR to scan all plates near them and flag cars that are stolen or have warrants. However, there is no need to update any file with the location the plate was detected. A simple "Blue Ford at your 5-o'clock position is reported stolen" is enough.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    23. Re:Where is the line? by matang · · Score: 1

      i've always believed that the line is crossed somewhere in the automation of things we are allowed to do individually. you can go to your local register of deeds and get someone's marriage certificate or information on their home (property location, value, previous owners, etc). i don't have an issue with that until it's automated, where you go to a web site and can check on literally anyone you want in half a second. in the former there is a commitment of time and effort involved that would a) dissuade most individuals from abusing the system and b) make the entire process slow enough that any abuse would be limited. in the latter you can literally get information on hundreds of people per hour. i feel it's the same with these automatic tracking devices. having a cop enter a license plate manually when there is probable cause is a LOT different than having a machine attached to his car do it automatically and store the information. just my two cents.

    24. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taken to the extreme, with scanners almost everywhere, it *is* equivalent to them placing a device on your car.

    25. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would we have a problem with the system if it was incapable of storing the data?

      This being /., probably. And then we'd have a big argument about how to back up the data, and you know RAID isn't a real backup and anyway it has to be offsite, but it should be automated and replicated in a mirrored data center in a separate disaster zone, but you need a physical copy locally to hedge against the chance of needing to restore individual license plate records in case of accidental deletion.

    26. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first, scanning plates doesn't identify the person, just who owns the car, and in many places with car rental services, who owns it and who drove it can be completely different (like using an IP address to identify who downloaded infringing content).

      But what if you downloaded the car?

    27. Re:Where is the line? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own... but simply using technology to speed up the process.

      No, having license plate scanners is like having tracking devices on vehicles...it means that tracking can be done with little to no effort on the part of the government.

      If the police want to task some officers to follow you 24/7, that's fine, since they have to figure out a way to do that within the budget and without disrupting their ability to support the rest of the community. Likewise, if they want to task officers to sit at corners and record license plate numbers, that's fine, too. Or, if they need to review the traffic cameras for a specific incident, that's OK, but having those cameras that were installed with the promise that it would help drivers manage their commute with no mention of long-term storage of the data also automatically create a database of license plates is wrong.

    28. Re:Where is the line? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      As long as locations can be stored forever, and retrieved at a whim, abuse will be significant.

      And let's not forget that every database like this seems to get hacked, so this means that stalkers/burglars/whoever will also end up with the information.

    29. Re:Where is the line? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Exactly. "Waste of money" gets the attention of all the idiots who don't see large scale invasions of personal privacy as a problem. But tell them the their own money is paying for it and suddenly they are interested.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    30. Re:Where is the line? by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 2

      Quick question, at what point does your sampling turn into tracking?

      The hardware gets cheap enough to put at every intersection with a stoplight, the camara is already there to control the timing of the lights. They record every plate going through those intersections and store the date and time. A year from now your significant other wants to know where you were on Halloween, the lawyer subpeonas the records and now the lawyer has access to your location all night long.

    31. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use to see people doing that and would circle the block to go thru the intersection in all possible directions just to mess with the data. took some time, but helped skew the data, maybe.

      But so, I live south, and am going east and turned north. Let them scratch their heads on that one.

    32. Re:Where is the line? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Anyone can sit down and write down liscense plate numbers. Citizens have done this on their own when they have suspected a house on their block of drug trafficking. Very few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

      Police officers routinely check license plates against a registry of stolen cars. Few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.

      If police placed a device on my car that told them where I was 24/7, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy.

      Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own..

      Actually, it is MUCH closer to #3 than #2.

      With these scanners all over the place (and eventually they will be)...they are scanning everyone and compiling data on everyone...so, it is trivial to find where anyone was at any given time. In essence...they are tracking you the same as if they had a device physically on your car, but in this case, they're using a database rather than the physical device.

      Same outcome either way....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:Where is the line? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of police having an OCR to scan all plates near them and flag cars that are stolen or have warrants. However, there is no need to update any file with the location the plate was detected. A simple "Blue Ford at your 5-o'clock position is reported stolen" is enough.

      True...however, there really hasn't ever been a power or law granted or passed, that hasn't eventually been escalated far beyond its original intent. In this case, it is trivial to compile the data and analyze it...."it could be useful".

      It will be, and actually....it is actually part of the plan with rollout on this one....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:Where is the line? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I do believe that total surveillance is inevitable; it will keep becoming easier and cheaper until it happens sooner or later. I think the big question is who will have access to the data. Since information is power, if access to the information is limited then it will contribute to a power inequality. If access to the source data is free and open, it will diminish power inequality.

    35. Re:Where is the line? by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Quick question, at what point does your sampling turn into tracking?

      The hardware gets cheap enough to put at every intersection with a stoplight, the camara is already there to control the timing of the lights. They record every plate going through those intersections and store the date and time. A year from now your significant other wants to know where you were on Halloween, the lawyer subpeonas the records and now the lawyer has access to your location all night long.

      The cameras they use now to control traffic lights don't have the resolution to grab license numbers. Even if they did, they still couldn't under common lighting conditions. That's why red light cameras often have high-intensity strobes that fire even during the day, so they can use a high enough shutter speed to freeze the image and and get good contrast. The plate scanners must be closer or the speed differential between the camera and plate must be low enough so a good image can be captured. I don't think it's going to be cheap enough in the near future to put cameras at every intersection. Which is a good thing.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    36. Re:Where is the line? by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own

      Not quite, it is actually an extension of case #3 to cover all cars everywhere, all the time. If these things are everywhere, reading everyone's plates, and storing the data then they have a pretty effective (although maybe not entirely complete) GPS tracking of every car, where it's been, where it's going, and when it was there.

    37. Re:Where is the line? by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Nice to know about the current cameras, but couldn't they just get some of that software they use on CSI to make the plates readable ;-).

      Seriously though my big problem with all this is the long term storage and then some lawyer subpoenaing the data for a divorce case or the equivalent. Once the data is there the lawyers will always figure out a way to get it even if the law says they shouldn't.

    38. Re:Where is the line? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Uh, wait, if the effect is exactly the same as a tracking device being placed on your car 24x7, what difference does it make what technique they use to get this information?

      With all due respect, I think you're being rather dense.

    39. Re:Where is the line? by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of "The Adventure of the Red Headed League". Any chance you lived above a bank? :)

    40. Re:Where is the line? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Correlation of data and movement patterns is also somewhat of a concern, but moreso for people who prefer to be anonymous in their daily lives.

      I disagree. Long-term, I think this is going to be the bigger problem. If the government is retaining data on people's movements, it's pretty easy to find out. Suspicious behavior by certain officials as if they're hiding something, a boy scout or whistleblower, leads to a FOIA request and the data is out there for the voters to see. It's then pretty obvious to the public what the government is up to. That helps keep it in check.

      But correlation of data and movement patterns... Have you read up on how the Kinect works? They didn't teach the Kinect how to recognize your body parts. They used a machine learning algorithm and fed it lots of images of people's bodies in different positions. It basically taught itself how to recognize where your body parts are. Nobody really knows exactly how it's doing it at the instruction-by-instruction level. It's just been trained to rummage through a mishmash of probability tables and decision trees, and the end result is that it does it.

      Now, if you didn't know what the Kinect was supposed to do, and you were given the code for it from a FOIA request, how would you ever figure out that its purpose is to recognize body parts? Basically it'd be like trying to figure out who was a serial killer by looking at MRI scans and dissected brains. The data, the code making up the Kinect (or your brain) is pretty useless. You need the actual hardware and some time to play around with its inputs and outputs to figure out what it's supposed to do.

      For a more relevant example, consider the face recognition techniques they've been trying out in airports to pick out terrorists (putting aside whether it's right or wrong). Say we don't want to do racial profiling. If you do it the human way, the training material may say "terrorists tend to be young Arab males 90% of the time" (made-up number). That comes out in a FOIA request, and it's immediately obvious that they're profiling. The civil liberties people get all upset about that, politicians lose votes, and the system is changed.

      Now say they used machine learning to train a computer to recognize terrorists. It's been trained with a bunch of faces of terrorists, and if most of them happen to be young Arab males then the system has essentially been trained to profile for young Arab males. But if they're careful and never mention this in any documents, could you ever figure out from FOIA requests or even people working closely with the system that it is basically profiling based on race and gender?

      It's security through complexity. If a system is so complex that regular people can't grok it (e.g. the planet's climate), then no matter how much evidence you have many people will still doubt what your evidence points to because the sheer complexity of the system makes it difficult to evaluate the validity of the evidence.

    41. Re:Where is the line? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      So, the obvious solution is captcha license plates!

    42. Re:Where is the line? by avm · · Score: 1

      Or, next door to one? And kudos on the literary reference, btw.

    43. Re:Where is the line? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own... but simply using technology to speed up the process. Where is the line? Is it the automation and efficiency?

      It's the difference between tracking any given person and tracking every given person.

    44. Re:Where is the line? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget that every database like this seems to get hacked, so this means that stalkers/burglars/whoever will also end up with the information.

      Similarly we should not forget civil matters where attorneys will subpoena this information to be used against the other party. Contentious divorce? Subpoena all of the location data for the husband's car and see if we can catch him doing anything.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    45. Re:Where is the line? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      How do you ensure that any plate subjected to automated scanning won't be stored forever? The only way to ensure that is to never allow it in the first place. If a real live officer can't make and store the observation with paper and pencil, it shouldn't be made or stored in the first place.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    46. Re:Where is the line? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      I can see a compromise making sense.

      A database is updated with the OCR time and position of all cars. But only flagged cars are accessed.

      The advantage of this is the ability to research later after the fact. "Oh, you were nowhere near that bar on the night of the 16th? Let's see if we can confirm that..."

      Car stolen? Don't have LOJACK or whatever? File a police report and just as the cameras can continue to watch for your plates, they can go back and see if they already saw your plates before you even knew the car was missing.

      Want to put legal protections into the system that keep it from being mined without probable cause? I can live with that.

  6. Fight the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know some nonsense excuse will come about taking away every remaining civil liberty we have in the name of fighting boogeyman terrorists.

  7. still have privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    walk, ride a bike, take the bus, hire a cab, limo, rickshaw, or horse drawn carriage, etc...

  8. "Simple" Solution by kalalau_kane · · Score: 1

    Just make the data publicly accessible. If the overlords want to create a database of what peons do, like, say, go, wear, .... Just put it online in a publicly accessible database and justify keeping the data to the Legislative and Judicial branches. Further -- no excepting anyone from being included in the database or from accessing it. Public pressure will serve to keep things honest.

    1. Re:"Simple" Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make the data publicly accessible.

      Honestly, the only people who would win are the advertisers that get information for free.

    2. Re:"Simple" Solution by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      The divorce lawyers would also love to have this kind of information available to them.

      Lawyer: Johnny why were you at the Gentleman's Club December 5 four years ago?

      Johnny: Don't think I was.

      Lawyer: Your license plate was tracked on your way there and in the lot.

      Johnny: Really ?

      Lawyer: Yep, gotcha.

  9. It isn't just cars by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    I heard the FAA has been tracking airplanes for years!

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  10. Use a Frame by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My van has a custom built (By me) License plate frame that unless you are DIRECTLY dead on line of sight,all you see is a 1 finger salute.The Van give the bird to any cameras or scanners out there.

    --
    Geek Hillbilly
    1. Re:Use a Frame by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      My van has a custom built (By me) License plate frame that unless you are DIRECTLY dead on line of sight,all you see is a 1 finger salute.

      Lenticular, I assume?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Use a Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this legal where you live?

    3. Re:Use a Frame by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Some states consider it obscuring the license plate, and fine you for it (you are breaking the purpose of the license plate). Watch out.

    4. Re:Use a Frame by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      In what state is that legal?

    5. Re:Use a Frame by cvtan · · Score: 1

      If your plate frame involves putting something in front of the plate (even clear plastic), it would be illegal in NY. Not sure how many other states do this.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    6. Re:Use a Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't, but he hasn't been arrested yet because they can't get his license plate number.

    7. Re:Use a Frame by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 1

      Think Venetian Blinds & how they work.Nothing in Ky law forbidding it

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
    8. Re:Use a Frame by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dont read your own laws then?

      186.170 Display of registration plates, insignia-
      No rim, frame, or other covering around the plate shall in any way obscure
      or cover any lettering or decal on the plate

      186.170 00449 RIM OR FRAME OBSCURING LETTERING OR DECAL ON PLATE VIOLATION

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    9. Re:Use a Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know New Jersey it is. Even having a license plate holder that's border is thick enough to partially cover the words "New Jersey" or "Garden State" along the top and bottom of the plate is grounds for a police officer to pull you over. It should be noted, though, that most license plate holders installed by dealerships violate this rule, but rarely are people pulled over, let alone ticketed, for the offense. When it does come in to play is when an officer needs an excuse to pull you over and stick their nose through the window. Basically it's a way to pretend that people are not being profiled. Drive a car that looks "suspicious" (as in, that's what a criminal or drug user would drive). Even if you are driving the speed limit and obeying all other traffic laws, the license plate holder is one of many excuses police have to pull you over. Usually, they just make something up like "you weren't wearing your seat belt" or some other BS, though.

    10. Re:Use a Frame by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      That appears to just be the titles of specific sections not the actual criminal code its self. It is entirely possible that in the code it states the angles and directions from which the plate must be visible, or that the code does not specify and so leave it open to interpretation.

    11. Re:Use a Frame by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      That may be against the law. A better way is to put infrared lights around the plate. It in no way obscures the plate visually to the human eye, but cameras will see a big bright mess.

    12. Re:Use a Frame by romco · · Score: 2

      I have a bike rack on the back of my car. Makes it very hard to read the plate without moving around a bit as bar that sticks up always covers at least one number. Never had a problem with cops with it.

      --
      AdFuel
    13. Re:Use a Frame by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Is now a bad time to point out that he said "NY" and you looked up the law for "KY"? (-_-)

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    14. Re:Use a Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have missed a post in that thread. The one directly proceeding the comment you replied to was

      "Think Venetian Blinds & how they work.Nothing in Ky law forbidding it"

    15. Re:Use a Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's in the state code.

      http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/186-00/170.PDF

    16. Re:Use a Frame by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Cool...how bout some pics?

    17. Re:Use a Frame by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking of the reverse - a cover for the license plate that incorporates a bunch high-powered infra-red LEDs. Almost all of the ANPR cameras are IR sensitive to help them work at night. So you can blind them or at least obfuscate the plate in a way that a normal human won't notice but will affect the camera.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:Use a Frame by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      *sigh* I swear I read that 5 times and it said KY :(

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    19. Re:Use a Frame by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The post you replied to did. Don't be fooled by the moderation. Nice job finding that, too, as it made the original poster look arrogantly foolish.

  11. Bike by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    All the more reason to ride a bike.

    1. Re:Bike by EnergyScholar · · Score: 1

      Only in the short time window that occurs AFTER the cameras routinely identify license plates and BEFORE the cameras also routinely perform Face Recognition. I guess that's a 5 - 10 year window, at most.

    2. Re:Bike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a great alternative, however, in some areas riding bike after dark is seen as "suspicious behavior" by the police and they hassle you for it. My brother lives in a affluent planned city which encourages bike riding (over 275 miles of bicycle lanes and about 45 miles of off-road bicycle trails in a city of roughly 67 square miles in size), yet if he rides his bike after 9 p.m. he is inevitably stopped and questioned by the police.

    3. Re:Bike by danomac · · Score: 1

      Yep, when you go by a camera you can give them a half-moon!

  12. License plate scanners have privacy? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    I had not realized that license plate scanners had privacy. The summary does not seem to address the issue of whether the ACLU thinks that license place scanners should have privacy and don't or if they should not have privacy and do.
    Reading the summary it seems that the ACLU is not questioning the privacy of license plate scanners, but is instead questioning the impact of license plate scanners on privacy. That is a very different question.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  13. Not the scanners but how they use them. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I had a friend who got a $300 fine for driving with expired registration in the mail, because a police car flagged his car (Flagged when he was driving to the DMV to renew it), then months later they mailed him the fine, because the city needed some extra revenue. The same thing with traffic camera. I am OK with them monitoring the road, but if you are going to fine someone it should be done in real time. A parking ticket, when you get back to your car, you know you made a mistake. You run a red light, then you see Blue (or Red in NY) blinking behind you, you know what you did. These Delayed fines, are not helpful in solving bad behaviors, because too much time has gone by. Chances are the person doesn't even remember the act.
    We have all made mistakes, and not get caught.
    I have Ran Red Lights, not out of malice or being in a rush, but my mind was focusing on the car in front of me, or the guy tailgating me from behind, or just a brain fart of thinking Red is Go and Green is stop. (Red and Green are opposite colors and if you see the lights out of your direct vision, they can seem the same color.)

    I have missed the Do not turn on Red Signs (as they place them where you can't read the sign if you are stopped at a red light.)

    It is part of a bigger problem of Government thinking it is OK, to make revenue off of Fines, Then working hard to try to catch people breaking them.

    Lets put the Traffic Lights upside down, so we can flag all the color blind people (or sideways like in Rochester, NY). Or lets make all the stop signs Green Circles. The heck with safety, we just need to bring in revenue.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was expired while he was driving to the DMV, it don't matter that he was en route tot he DMV, it was expired and the fine was legitimate.

      None of your other points are very good either...

    2. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You make a point that some people seem to have missed, so I will restate it. The official purpose of fines for traffic violations (and violations of other laws) is to discourage this behavior. If the gap between the behavior that the fine is intended to discourage and the fine being levied is too large, it will have no impact on the behavior because the person will not connect the punishment with the behavior.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you shouldn't be driving then.

      (Red and Green are opposite colors and if you see the lights out of your direct vision, they can seem the same color.)

      Why would it be out of your direct vision? Lights are at such a small minute of arc out of your normal sight line, if you can't tell what color it is, you cannot operate a vehicle safely.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    4. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      That depends on the jurisdiction and such. Where I live a recently expired registration is usually a fixit ticket where you just need to get the situation remedied and the ticket will be waived, usually you still have to pay the $50 court fees though.

      As for the moving violations he has a very good point. In most cases an automated stop light or speeding fine doesn't stop the dangerous behavior that is happening. And stopping the dangerous behavior is the whole point of a traffic stop. And for legal reasons it is purely a fine with no points associated, so that you don't risk losing your license. This makes these offenses purely revenue generation, and turns breaking these laws into more of a financial question. If you had the money there would be no reason not to just run red lights when you thought it was safe or speed excessively, as you wouldn't be risking your license or even the annoyance of a traffic stop. Steve Jobs would have loved this one given his penchant for driving a recently leased vehicle to avoid needing a licenseplate and then parking in handicap spaces.

      Now suppose in ten years or so when these automated methods are more widespread for traffic enforcement, will police staffing be cut back? I'm betting it will, because currently revenue from traffic violations is the main driving force for cities to keep police officers on staff. And how about car theft, if I were to steal a car what incentive would there be for me to obey traffic laws at all if the risk of being stopped by an officer is non existant. I might get caught more quickly if the owner realizes the car has been stolen and reports it quickly enough, but until then I can truly joy ride without the risk of a traffic stop and ensuring arrest.

      Then we have cases like happened up North last winter I believe. Some cities weren't able to keep up with clearing snow from the streets so it was just piled to the sides completely blocking regular right hand turn lanes. The drivers easily adapted and turned right from the lane that was normally a straight only. Any driver that turned right on red as was legal, at a light monitored by an automated red light camera got a nice fat fine in the mail. Any police officer on the scene would have realized what was happening and not bothered to issue any citations. The cities solution though was for everyone that thought their ticket was improper to contest it, on their own dime and time.

      So far as the plate scanners go I'm alright with them so long as they are completely incapable or retaining data that is not directly tied to some infraction, and are being actively used by a police officer. That way when the scanner spits out a violation it can actually be acted on immediately. That way your stolen car might actually be reclaimed before it makes it to the chop shop.

    5. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      Looks like you want to blame all your failings on everyone else and on "The Man" being out to get you.

      If you can't read road signs, and aren't paying enough attention to the road to be able to determine what lights are showing then you are unfit to operate a vehicle.

      Let me guess, if you go through a red light "not out of malice" and T bone some helpless motorist then it's not your fault? It's his fault for being in your way, or the government for trying to catch you out with a fine by bad positioning of the traffic lights?

      The friend who got a fine for driving with expired registration "on the way to renew it" was dead on - he was breaking the law. The rules are clear - it doesn't matter what his intent is. Driving with expired registration is ripe for a fine if you are caught. I have no sympathy.

    6. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Why would it be out of your direct vision? Lights are at such a small minute of arc out of your normal sight line, if you can't tell what color it is, you cannot operate a vehicle safely.

      People can be red-green colour blind and operate a vehicle just fine. The problem is, when places start getting their asses up in the air and don't conform to one of two standards of hanging street lights. And there have been a couple of places that have been sued into the dirt for this, there *are* proper ways to hang lights, because if you don't you're going to cause an accident for those that do have this disability.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That depends on the jurisdiction and such. Where I live a recently expired registration is usually a fixit ticket where you just need to get the situation remedied and the ticket will be waived, usually you still have to pay the $50 court fees though.

      Sometimes there's no choice but to drive without registration. I bought a used car with the CEL on, went to register it, and found out that the previous owner had let the emissions certificate lapse. Fixing the emissions meant the CEL had to measure the sensors and reset, which takes about a week's worth of driving. Therefore, I had to drive it unregistered for a while. Luckily, I didn't get caught.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Lets put the Traffic Lights upside down

      They actually did that in a town in Arizona. My dad's red-green color blind got a ticket for running it. It was incredibly stupid of that town, something like 5% of the male population is red-green color blind, which could make that town deadly, and not just to the color blind. They're putting people's lives at risk for money!

      He was PISSED when they changed stop signs from yellow to red, they were invisible to him if they were in front of foliage. Happily, they now have a white outline to them so they're no longer invisible.

    9. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Actually I don't get into to many problems, I never had an automated ticket. However I see cases where I found I did violate the law because the system was setup to allow me to violate the law by putting the information in locations that makes it hard to find.

      You are stopped at the red light. The No Turn on Red sign is parallel to your car, you can't read it while you are at the red light. If you break the law and get caught, you can't use the excuse I couldn't read the sign, because I could if I was paying attention to all the signs that are posted. But the fact the sign is out of the way, they are counting on people to make the mistake as to bring up revenue.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Why would [a traffic light] be out of your direct vision? Lights are at such a small minute of arc out of your normal sight line, if you can't tell what color it is, you cannot operate a vehicle safely.

      You obviously don't live in the Boston area. ;-)

      About a mile from where I live (Waltham MA USA), at the intersection of two main streets (US 20 and South Street), if you're eastbound in the inner of two lanes, the traffic light directly ahead of your lane is often green when you actually have a red light and the traffic coming from your right has a green light. If I lean far forward in my seat, I can spot the red light above the upper-left corner of my car and another off to the right that apply to my lane. But I'm on the tall side (6'1"), and the lights are high and off to the sides, so I can't easily see the "correct" lights when sitting normally. I barely avoided accidents here several times before I figured out the problem. It turns out to be well known to the locals, and has been that way for many years. Apparently the city's traffic-control folks consider it a normal, legal way to set up the traffic lights.

      Similar goofy, misleading traffic lights can be found all around the metro area. Around here, you often see drivers with out-of-state plates and a "WTF??" look on their faces as they try to figure out what they can legally do. The local joke is that it's part of the general campaign to make driving difficult for outsiders (meaning anyone who doesn't live within a few blocks of the intersection). It goes along with such practices as rarely including the names of major streets on street signs, with the explanation that "If you don't know what street you're on, you shouldn't be driving here."

      This isn't nearly the only part of the world where such SNAFUs are common.

      (And no, I don't actually know who the above-mentioned green light applies to. Maybe to the folks turning right from South Street. It's a mystery to a lot of the local folks. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    11. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Forget it, he's latched onto "it's all to generate revenue" conspiracy theory. You can't reason him out of a position he wasn't reasoned into.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    12. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are stopped at the red light. The No Turn on Red sign is parallel to your car, you can't read it while you are at the red light. If you break the law and get caught, you can't use the excuse I couldn't read the sign, because I could if I was paying attention to all the signs that are posted. But the fact the sign is out of the way, they are counting on people to make the mistake as to bring up revenue.

      It's a perfectly valid excuse. If the cop doesn't accept it (he won't he's a jerk), talk to the judge. I've gotten out of tickets just writing a nice letter to the judge. Take pictures of the intersection showing exactly the problem and send a nice letter to the judge explaining the problem and ask for dismissal. You'll likely get one and if you do it right, you won't have to show up in court. You can try the prosecutor too, but I prefer judges.

    13. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are absolutely right, tech is never used in the way described, municipalities have never used it in the manner he describes, so he must be some sort of conspiracy theorist, because an asshole like you called him one.

      Fuck you and the people who modded this POS comment up.

    14. Re:Not the scanners but how they use them. by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Holy logical fallacy of the excluded middle Batman!

      How about a nice SHOTGUN MOUTHWASH?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  14. There is no way to stop this... by dryriver · · Score: 2

    These people won't rest until every phone can be tapped, every email recorded in a forever-database, every face recognized from 500 feet away by nextgen CCTV cameras, every car's whereabouts tracked via RFID or license plate readers... You get the idea. ----- For the people in power, all this surveillance and more is how the future "should look like". ------ They don't like the idea of peopel having some privacy. They don't like the idea of people being free, or having some secrets. That's not how the future THEY WANT looks like. ------ 10 - 20 years from, every little bit of liberty and privacy we take for granted may be gone, forever. Every step you take will be recorded. Every statement you utter also. Every phone conversation you have with someone. Every place you browse on the web. Every channel you watch on your TV. ------ These people cannot live with the idea of a FREE AND FAIR FUTURE for mankind. They are psychologically programmed to feel a need to watch everyone, all the time, and record everything for future evaluation. ------ Goodbye, old & free world. It was nice to experience you, even if it didn't last very long... --------

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:There is no way to stop this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no way to stop this...

      There is a way. Stop voting these assholes into office.

    2. Re:There is no way to stop this... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Stop voting these assholes into office.

      I tried that. It didn't work.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:There is no way to stop this... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      There is no way to stop this...

      There is a way. Stop voting these assholes into office.

      Considering that the system is gamed so that "these assholes" are the only ones eligible to run for higher office, I would be remiss if I didn't ask precisely what you suggest as the alternative option...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:There is no way to stop this... by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Tell me who to vote for then.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    5. Re:There is no way to stop this... by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The problem is not getting rid of the current group of politicians.

      The problem is finding a different set of politicians who value the constitution and are willing to go against the entrenched bureaucracy to write laws that tear down the apparatus that has been built up and follow through to make sure that it stays torn down. This is the challenge. Neither of the major parties have a sufficient number of these individuals in them although there are a few. Nobody wants to take a chance on a third party such as the Constitution Party, which might actually accomplish this because "they can't win".

      If you really find a solution, please let everyone know.

    6. Re:There is no way to stop this... by kobaz · · Score: 2

      Wait... so... there are non-assholes running for government?

      --

      The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
    7. Re:There is no way to stop this... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Depending on where you live, there may be. Look for them and vote for them when you see them. And if you were wrong and they turned out to be an asshole, then stop voting for them and look for other non-assholes to vote for.

      And if you're really motivated, try running for something yourself (unless you're an asshole): In many communities it's quite possible to get yourself on the city council or school board by going around and convincing voters one at a time to support you, because it only takes a few hundred votes to win.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:There is no way to stop this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I read about Those people who won't rest until they can walk down every main street openly carrying one kilo of cocaine and not be stopped, allow every email to detail exactly how they'll murder next, have explosives that can take down an airliner in the garage and no nasty chemical sniffers allowed at the airports, and every police officer's whereabouts broadcast on CNN. You get the idea. ---- For the people committing crime, all that freedom and more is how the future "should look like." ----- They don't like the idea of law enforcement having any authority at all. They don't like that cops giving tickets save lives, or having anyone in jail.

      Oh, wait..... Since I (and you) are defining THEY and THEM without any references whatsoever, THEY and THEM can be WHOMEVER we WANT them to be whether THEY really exist at all.

      Goodbye, paranoia. It wasn't so nice to experience you, and glad you're gone in a burst of common sense.

  15. Privacy is impossible... by blahplusplus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... in the modern era. What about GEO IP location, or identifying people by their IP address + browsing history (everytime you visit a website, multiple websites are tracking you).

    Buzzwords like: Ad Serving, Traffic Analytics, Content Customization, are just euphamisms for identifying end users, their interests, spending habits, etc.

    The below company has blizzard entertainment and others as a clients, you can bet they are using it to identify where their users live, what their income levels are, etc. It's trivial to identify people once you have enough information. Especially isnce IP addresses often give away a persons physical location.

    http://www.maxmind.com/app/ip-location

    No one has the resources to deal with it, it's like piracy you can't stop it even if you'd want to and big business has an interest in furthering its criminality and criminalizing anything that gets in its way.

    1. Re:Privacy is impossible... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      IP addresses do not usually give away direct locations; they most often give away the location of the ISP. Maybe if you're working at a place that has their own static IP or block, but then you're potentially one of hundreds or thousands.

      I'm much less concerned with IP geolocation than automated tracking of license plates for this reason. A more comparable internet analogy (since we're already talking about cars) would be if police installed tracking software on the major routers of the internet backbone that could identify what people did at all times.

      It's not the fact that it can be done; it's the fact that it's done indiscriminately, without probable cause for such tracking, under the assumption that for a subset of the people tracked, they will find such probable cause later.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Privacy is impossible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you have obviously never heard of TOR, Chaumian mixes, Dining Cryptographers, etc..

    3. Re:Privacy is impossible... by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Research has been done such that if you know the layout, of the network you can create a good idea of where geographically an IP is based on its ping time from nearest teleco router.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    4. Re:Privacy is impossible... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      And you're getting that node-to-node ping time how?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    5. Re:Privacy is impossible... by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "you have obviously never heard of TOR, Chaumian mixes, Dining Cryptographers, etc.."

      Facebook and how MOST people use the net and don't understand how technology works makes that effectively impossible (like I stated). Just because a small % of the population knows how to anonymize itself doesn't mean it's still not effectively impossible for large amounts of data related to you.

      Think of this for a second, you have friends or know people, have parents, they sign up for facebook and start posting pictures of someone you know or their family member and you happen to be included in it. Zip into the database you go! Same with email and everything else. People always give away other peoples information unintentionally unknowingly everyday. You can't escape the fact that all information exists in a network and anyone in your network that leaks info about you means its effectively impossible for you to control much of the information about you floating around. Just interacting with any system (financial, banks, etc) means you're giving away data to OTHER institutions which are also CLUELESS or if not clueless you still have businesses selling data to other businesses for profit behind your back which is also from a pragmatic perspective largely unenforceable.

    6. Re:Privacy is impossible... by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      tracert

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    7. Re:Privacy is impossible... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I would assume the error introduced by not measuring directly from the router would be pretty immense.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  16. This car story needs a internet analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A license plate number only tells who the car is registered to and not the person who is driving it, like an I.P. address may tell who paid for the internet access but not who is using that connection at any moment in time.
    I am sorry officer it was my dog driving the car.

  17. Doomed by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we look at things optimistically, you may successfully persuade police departments and other government agencies to ignore this publicly visible data.

    But regardless of whether you succeed at that or not, if you concentrate on the scanning tech rather than the visible plate, then you have a 0% chance of addressing the privacy concerns. Even if you stop government from looking at the plates, what about the other 99% of the population who is able to see the plates?

    This reminds me of situations where people send plaintext emails, find out the one of the dozens or hundreds of parties who is able to read those emails (government) happens to actually be doing it, and then say that making government stop doing that, will solve the problem. *facepalm*

    Either become ok with your license plate being a cookie, or lobby to end license plates (and that, I admit, is a very hard position to take). There is no middle solution, and approaches that involve putting scanning genies back into bottles, are stupid on the face of it and 100% guaranteed to not work -- and even that is assuming you can get government to do what you want.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Doomed by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      It's not the tech that's proposed being regulated, it's how the tech is used. So big logical fail there.

      Also, the comparison with the public seeing plates vs. the state rolling out databases and scanners to monitor the public is another massive logical fail.

      License plates are not "cookies", scanning tech is not the issue here, and idiots that don't value privacy are the real issue.

      Claiming there's no middle ground is also another massive logical fail. New tech wielded by assholes that don't give a fuck about your privacy isn't a new God to be subjugated to, and there is nothing wrong or futile in regulating how the government or corporations use tech to destroy privacy.

      The issue isn't that people can see the fucking plates, and it isn't that scanners can scan them; it's what's DONE WITH the data, and how it's collected and stored that is the issue. Without a database and infrastructure to manage and collect it, the scanners are irrelevant.

  18. Free the data by Patrick+May · · Score: 1

    If the government is using our money to build these systems, they should make the data available publicly, in real time. While I'd much rather they didn't collect it at all, knowing where the police cruisers are at all times would be some small compensation.

    1. Re:Free the data by Patrick+May · · Score: 1

      Rudely replying to my own post.

      We don't even need to rely on the government database. Web cams in private cars feeding data to REST service at an aggregating website, maybe with a Raspberry Pi onboard to do some preprocessing....

      Excuse me, I have some hacking to do.

  19. How to defeat these scanners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not also work on developing countermeasures? Would some high-power IR LEDs pointed at your license plate along with the normal plate illumination lights have any effect? Polarizing filters?

    1. Re:How to defeat these scanners? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      that kind of thing becomes very quickly illegal in fact if you have DIRT on your plate and have been pulled over for X then the officer gets to add a FELONY to the list of charges.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:How to defeat these scanners? by PPH · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

      Its their dirt. From their road construction projects.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:How to defeat these scanners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which they use to double the traffic fines, including the fines for illegible license plates.

  20. Well, They are probably an invasion of privacy... by BMOC · · Score: 2

    But they have likely saved me a few traffic stops, to say the least. My Truck hasn't had up-to-date registration stickers on the plates in nearly a year, and I haven't been pulled over once. I paid registration, but CA DMV simply sent the stickers to the wrong address and I decided it wasn't worth my time to correct their mistake. Mind you, I've had a lot of cops suddenly pull up behind me, only to lose interest and change lanes/move away about 30-60 seconds later. So.... yeah, an invasion of privacy is likely, but it does improve police work.

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
  21. Yup, open and shut case for the SOYTUS, maybe by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    If Scalia can get past the four-letter-words while convincing his fellow Justices that this is clearly unConstitutional.

    But our goverment is so willing to trample the Constitution just because they have the technology to do so. This is a fight worth fighting. And others as well.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  22. China compiles massive dossier on every citizen by C0L0PH0N · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real threat, that the ACLU knows very clearly, is that the clearest path to government oppression of its citizens is to follow the path of China and other totalitarian regimes, and put together a massive dossier on every citizen. Then, anytime the government wants to crack down on a citizen, it has all the information it needs to put the citizen away. As any police officer will tell you, with over 5,000 federal laws, and countless local state and municipal laws, every citizen breaks laws without even knowing it, and if they follow you in a cruiser, then eventually can legally pull you over. What protects us is that most miniscule violations are not on the books. But if the government can collect 100% of all the information technology increasingly permits, they will begin to get 100% information. This will not harm you until the government decides to focus its laser power on YOU. There is little in this world as powerful as government, which can bring down the powerful, the wealthy, even the lawmakers. The ACLU has this one right - our government needs to be limited in the information it gathers on us.

    1. Re:China compiles massive dossier on every citizen by scorp1us · · Score: 2

      Hey, we do too!

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  23. Not the right approach by wealthychef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rather than focus on preventing government from spying on us and collecting information on us, which is futile, we need to focus on collecting information about our government and the actions of elected officials and making it transparent and easy to access for all citizens. The problem is that there is an inequality in the available information and that leads to too much government power. I seriously think our congressmen should be filmed 24/7 and all their motions made public, perhaps 1 year later to avoid the threat of assassination.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
  24. Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    I'm getting a little tired of seeing posts on retained information and person information and scanning etc.... Here's the deal, if you don't want your personal information stored by others get rid of the internet, your house, your car, all forms of non paper money, never show up anywhere there is a camera, never go to church ( God is storing your person data!!!!! ) and then crawl into a hole 50 Km under ground and stay there, and you better be naked because the government will use the tag on your jeans to find you.

    The sooner people wake up and figure out that you don't have privacy anymore the better, the best question to ask in this case is what are you doing that you require such privacy?

    If you do any activity which required your name be put to paper then your trackable okay, simple, easy and clear now grow up.

    1. Re:Privacy is dead by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      the best question to ask in this case is what are you doing that you require such privacy?

      There are numerous personal reasons someone could want privacy. Let's just allow the government to install surveillance equipment in every room of every house. We don't have privacy, after all! So instead of fighting back, let's just give up and make it worse! After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      After all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?

      .....Thats right, I have nothing to hide, which is my point.

    3. Re:Privacy is dead by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      Okay, here's the deal, and I assume you SHOULD 'get it' by now, so you're probably just trolling, but I will indulge you.

      There's new laws being passed, constantly. Seldom to old laws actually get repealed. Following this out to its logical end, more things become illegal, suppressed, or controlled than they were previously. Suppose that something that you did a week ago suddenly became illegal. Take smoking cigarettes, for example. Say you're a good little obedient Citizen, and you've stopped smoking. Oho, but the Government knows you WERE smoking previously. They also know it's hard to kick the habit. Now they're investigating you, assuming that you've been finding some way to circumvent the constant monitoring, because after all, there'll always be criminals, right?

      Is it RIGHT for the goverment to be able to do that? I mean, I know you like your Facebook and enjoy Amazon sifting through your search results and now that's got you thinking that it's cool the government does it, but it's really not. I can not use Facebook and Amazon. I can't not use the government.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    4. Re:Privacy is dead by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the best question to ask in this case is what are you doing that you require such privacy?

      None of your damned business.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Privacy is dead by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      So why not or allow me (or the government) to install surveillance cameras in every room of your house? Normal humans apparently don't get embarrassed or simply desire privacy, apparently. Because you've arbitrarily decided that the kind of privacy you don't care about aren't important, no one should have them.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Lets define troll because 99% of people on slashdot don't understand what it means, Troll: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community", so first of all my comment isn't off-topic because it's about privacy, the very topic the post is about. Extraneous its not because it means the same thing as off-topic which I already covered and inflamatory means the same thing as off-topic. So now that we've covered what a troll is and why exactly my comment is NOT a trolling a post lets continue.

      First of all laws only apply on and after they get applied. So if smoking became illegal, which is prefectly fine with me as I don't smoke, then it's only illegal to smoke after the law gets passed. So you quit, if you can't quit then your weak and it's not anyone elses fault. Second, if you really care so much about who is holding your data and where your personal information is going then you would take great person duty to protect it. This means you NEVER leave a trace online, not a cookie, not a history record, not even an IP footprint and NEVER leave your MAC footprint. That will protect you online, good luck BTW as the TCP header and IP header carry all this information.

      We still have an issue because I'm sure at some point you brought or leased or rented a car or put your name on paper for a transaction, So now your on a piece of paper meaning your name was writen down with identifying information and stored, so your on paper which really is no better then using the internet.

      Lets say you haven't ever gone online or even so much as touched a car or anything that would require you name being recorded. Lets assume you walk up to a pay phone one day and make a call, well guess what, you've logged yourself, your on the grid, you can be tracked. Lets say you go for lunch at a little country side breakfast dive, you stop in, you have some coffee, maybe a sandwhich and leave, well again you can now be tracked because people have seen you inside the shop.

      My point is that you'll never be able to fall so far off the grid and become so invisiable to everyone that you'll be untrackable. For the love of god if you have a license plate then it means you have a database storing your information. If a cop scans your plate or just goes and gets your records its the same thing, you have no control over it, you'll never have the control. If the government wants to find you they will, I'm not talking about installing camera's in everyroom of a house to watch you, they don't need to do that. Your on the grid from the moment your born, your in a phone book, your in school, your in a store, your even in a pool, your on the grid. What we as in everyone needs to think about is that if you really cared about your privacy you would do a hell of a lot more to protect it. Having your plate scanned is hardly the issue here, people just want to complain and bitch about something when they don't give a shit about the 99% of other ways they log themselves. If you want to prove my wrong then find a way to completely wipe yourself off the face of the earth so that no matter what and at all costs you can not be found, if the government invested a trillion dollar fund to find you, you could not be found, thats what you have to do, otherwise except the fact that your logged and on the grid.

    7. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Sure come over and install cameras, I live in Waterloo Ontario Canada, I'll be home at 9:00pm tonight and you can get started then. I have a pretty good server you can route them to!

    8. Re:Privacy is dead by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      I was suggesting trolling because you were suggesting that people were motivated for the desire for privacy because they are doing 'bad' things, in paricular when you questioned what they were doing such that it required so much privacy. I'd consider that inflammatory. I do not like being accused of 'bad' things. I do not think that I do 'bad' things; I simply do not want to be continually tracked because I don't want to be pulled over by an officer because some computer algorithm detected that I circled the block three times looking for an address when google maps is wrong. There are advances into 'precrime' that have been mentioned on slashdot even within the last couple days that could tie into this constant surveillance that I find distrubing. I do not want to be harassed by officers and suffer an investigation for 'facecrime'. I want to be left alone.

      In my hypothetical situation, while smoking isn't illegal, the fact that you used to be a smoker as recorded shows that you might still be doing it. If I were an overbearing government agent, I might want to persue that, or do you not think your previous history would honestly be considered though it wasn't illegal at the time? Maybe not while you're at home, but perhaps if you get stopped during a routine traffic stop. I've heard of 'probable cause' requiring less justification than that.

      As far as the logistical difficulty of staying hidden, I fully understand. It's all part of the underlying problem though: Just because something CAN be tracked doesn't mean it SHOULD.

      I don't know. Maybe I'm just paranoid. On the other hand, maybe that's not so completely unhealthy after all.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    9. Re:Privacy is dead by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Now if only that could truly be put to the test. I doubt you'd be so optimistic about it.

      The fact is, most people probably, even if they're not doing anything illegal, want to hide certain things. Most people feel things such as embarrassment that makes them want to hide certain things. The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is not only nonsensical, but it's used mainly by people who desire to take away your freedoms.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Privacy is dead by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      the best question to ask in this case is what are you doing that you require such privacy?

      Quite simply, we are all breaking the law. Every day. Maybe every hour. With thousands of laws on the books with countless things you can be arrested for, we can all be thrown in jail for a long time or fined into bankruptcy. I for one do not trust the government to not abuse this any further than I can throw them.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    11. Re:Privacy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have nothing to hide? Post your full address, phone number and credit card number(s) including expiration date and CVV.

    12. Re:Privacy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +infinity

    13. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Okay your know what fair enough, I don't want you to think that I was only implying bad acts! Just personally myself and everyone I know personally wouldn't actually care if they were tracked.

    14. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to agree with me, so thats fine! I respect your opinion but just don't agree with it.

    15. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Actually oddly enough I was just talking to my roommate about installing wireless webcams with edge detection active that talk to uC's to plot the position in 3D space of our rooms and can mark where we are and upload to twitter well having the streams from the webcams upload online. It honestly doesn't bother me.

    16. Re:Privacy is dead by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It honestly doesn't bother me.

      Really? Well, it likely bothers almost everyone else, and most people probably aren't doing anything that would normally be defined as "wrong."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    17. Re:Privacy is dead by dyingtolive · · Score: 1

      And I guess that raises an interesting point. I've seen people who are, like myself, adamantly against it, and I've seen people who appear to simply not care. I've never talked to real human beings (which, really, neither of us might even be) who actually WANT fullscale government tracking and think it is an amazing thing. If this isn't representative of the overall will of the people, why is it 'good'?

      Off topic, reflecting upon myself, I find that the first time I really started noticing or caring about privacy in an electronic format was when I was probably about 14, maybe 15 years old. My dad picked up a CueCat, which was a pretty revolutionary piece of consumer hardware at the time, if not a little gimmicky. He had it apart and was cutting into solder joints in it. I asked him what he was doing, and he said that he was preventing it from being able to send out the serial number, so it's use couldn't be tracked. I asked why, and he told me it was because he didn't want to be tracked. I said "Who cares?" He then asked me if I would like it much if they (my parents) watched my every move. I, of course, said that I wouldn't like that. He asked if I was doing things that they wouldn't like. I, of course, said no. I didn't feel like I needed to be watched constantly because I wasn't a little child.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    18. Re:Privacy is dead by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      I never said everyone is doing something wrong! You could be Jesus himself and live the most pure life ever and not want to be tracked. I was only stating that I honestly believe there is no way to truly go offline and off grid. If someone is so interested in my life that they feel watching me would help them then so be it, I'll let them watch me.

  25. Have you ever watched Parking Wars? by BetaDays · · Score: 1

    For those in the US we have a show on a cable channels A&E that has a show called Parking Wars. http://www.aetv.com/parking-wars/

    They go up and down streets looking for people who are not following the law on how and where to park and also run checks on all the cars to see if any outstanding parking violation are on them. And how do they get the people to pay up? They put what is called a "Boot" on the car that makes it so they can not move the car from the spot.

    --
    Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
    1. Re:Have you ever watched Parking Wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just call Angle Grinder Man!

  26. why do we have visible license plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not an RFID signal that the police can activate when they have a good reason to suspect something?

    1. Re:why do we have visible license plates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if I see a driver doing something wrong I should be able to identify him too.

  27. Liberty?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (HaHa)^99

    Ah haha *wipes tears*

    Really?! what's left?

  28. Justice Alito in recent GPS Tracking Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    JUSTICE ALITO: Well, that seems to get to me to get to what's really
    involved here, the issue of whether there is a technical trespass or
    not is potentially a ground for deciding this particular case, but it
    seems to me the heart of the problem that's presented by this case and
    will be presented by other cases involving new technology is that in
    the pre-computer, pre-Internet age much of the privacy -- I would say
    most of the privacy -- that people enjoyed was not the result of legal
    protections or constitutional protections; it was the result simply of
    the difficulty of traveling around and gathering up information. But
    with computers, it's now so simple to amass an enormous amount of
    information about people that consists of things that could have been
    observed on the streets, information that was made available to the
    public. If this case is decided on the ground that there was a
    technical trespass, I don't have much doubt that in the near future it
    will be probable -- I think it's possible now in many instances -- for
    law enforcement to monitor people's movements on -- on public streets
    without committing a technical trespass.
    So how do we deal with this? Do we just say, well, nothing is changed,
    so that all the information that people expose to the public -- is, is
    fair game? There is no -- there is no search or seizure when that is
    -- when that is obtained, because there isn't a reasonable expectation
    of privacy? But isn't there a real change in -- in this regard?

  29. I've said it before... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... and I'll say it again.

    People do *NOT* have any natural right to anonymity when they are in any sort of public place. I do not say this because I think privacy or anonymity is unimportant, but it's the furthest thing from any sort of natural right when a person makes a deliberate choice to be in a place where there are other people.

    The *ONLY* assurance that one might have of not being identified whenever they are in public is whatever sense of assurance that they possess that people who might have the ability to do so will simply be too indifferent about them to try.

    Of course, one has no real control over what other people think about them, so this sense of assurance, while it may be adequate for some people, is ultimately ephemeral.

    1. Re:I've said it before... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      So I guess you're fine with "up-skirt" photos, as long as the perpetrator gets the shot on an escalator or something like that, so he could claim the view was there for anyone who looked.

      This issue isn't as simple as you claim, as anybody with even a modicum of common sense understands.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:I've said it before... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      The courts have been consistently ruling in favor of "assumed" privacy. So, if technology is developed by law enforcement to see, say heat emanating from the walls of your house consistent with a marijuana grow lab, they can't use that info to bust in the door. If tech is developed that allows citizens to be wholesale tracked door-to-door, it'll probably be challenged and ruled out.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:I've said it before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess you're fine with "up-skirt" photos...

      You completely missed his point. Look up the meaning of the word "anonymity".

    4. Re:I've said it before... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      People do *NOT* have any natural right to anonymity when they are in any sort of public place.

      Correct, but the people do have the right to demand that the government refrain from tracking them. Remember who the sovereign is.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:I've said it before... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Anybody with a modicum of sense knows that deliberately trying to peek at what somebody has underneath their clothes is both immature and indecent.

      There is a world of difference between what a person has made some reasonable effort to keep private by wearing clothing, and a license plate, which is *SUPPOSED* to be plainly visible whenever the vehicle is in any public place. There's absolutely nothing that a license plate scanner does that could not be done if a police officer simply personally saw and recorded the plate manually. Besides, a license plate is not an individual's private property, it belongs to the state. If you want all the rights to your own license plates, see if you can form your own sovereignty.

      And if the notion of license plate scanners really bothers you, you might try pulling what Steve Jobs did, and go out and get a new car every 6 months so that you never need to put a plate on it. Although I'm pretty sure that trick won't work everywhere.

    6. Re:I've said it before... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making my point. There's a difference between what's there to be seen and what's there to be recorded and saved for purposes that would formerly have required some kind of approval, if not a warrant.

      Even if he did nothing else all day long, a police officer couldn't "see and record" more than a few hundred plates a day. That gives him an incentive to record only those that he thinks might be of interest. A few strategically located scanners could record hundreds of thousands, and keep them on file for purposes never intended by the people who enacted legislation requiring that kind of vehicle identification.

      Just imagine what kind of capabilities a huge license plate location database would offer to a cop who wanted to find and track his ex-wife.

      Similarly, a glimpse of carelessly-displayed panties is a very, very different thing from someone mounting a camera where it records a view of everybody who uses a public stairway so that the images can be searched, and embarrassing ones posted on a website.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:I've said it before... by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      That should be a civil matter regarding the use of photographs of people for profit without consent. If you have a problem with someone managing to snap a photo without intentionally trying to circumvent your wardrobe with something like a camera in a bag trick, then maybe you should consider wearing cloths that do not permit that (pants or longer skirts). If they used that picture for profit, then you should consider suing them (IANAL).

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    8. Re:I've said it before... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If, and *ONLY* if, you've gone to some reasonable effort to keep your privacy, then yes. As there's nothing you can legally do to keep your license plate number concealed from public viewing, nor is there anything that you can do to stop somebody from happening to see your car in two separate places and effectively "track" you. And the only real difference between a computer doing it and a person is that it generally isn't humanly possible to be as comprehensive - but I do not recognize that as a significant difference between computer programs and human though.

    9. Re:I've said it before... by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Remember who the sovereign is.

      Big corporations with truckloads of money and armies of lawyers?

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  30. I'd thought auto insurance use them first by peter303 · · Score: 1

    I'd think some enterprising vendor would collect license plat location data and sell it to insurance companies. They have an insatiable appetite for rate-rising data.

  31. This is good news! by stoicfaux · · Score: 1

    I've always wanted to know what establishments and homes that my local officials, politicians, lobbyists, and CEOs travel to and from...

  32. ACLU at it again by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Challenging the rights of our government to protect us. I guess they hate Freedom...

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  33. Cell phone companies already do this? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Don't the cell phone companies already have this type of data (but at an individual level, not just tied to your car). What do they do with the data?

  34. OCR not that far from Face Recognition by EnergyScholar · · Score: 1

    Did it occur to you that, once the cameras are in place to track license place, it might be just a simple software upgrade to add Face Recognition everywhere. There goes your privacy. Face recognition software and cameras are now routine.

  35. Slave Mentality Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really amazing watching all the idiots with "slave mentality" defending abuse of privacy and power.

    Not only that, but they make excuses for it like "I have nothing to hide" and "there's nothing you can do about it so you might as well accept it". They defend abuse and make reasons why it's "ok". It's sickening.

    It's more and more rare to see people stand up and fight against evil. It's just easier to be lazy, do nothing, and then watch a bunch of morons throw a ball around on TV while they become intoxicated with a six pack and pizza - without even a shred of worry for their children's future. It's just unbelievable.

    1. Re:Slave Mentality Idiots by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It's really amazing watching all the idiots with "slave mentality" defending abuse of privacy and power.

      Not only that, but they make excuses for it like "I have nothing to hide" and "there's nothing you can do about it so you might as well accept it". They defend abuse and make reasons why it's "ok". It's sickening.

      It's more and more rare to see people stand up and fight against evil. It's just easier to be lazy, do nothing, and then watch a bunch of morons throw a ball around on TV while they become intoxicated with a six pack and pizza - without even a shred of worry for their children's future. It's just unbelievable.

      Are license plate cameras really any worse than license plates themselves? If license plates were not required until now and the government wanted people to force people to use their real name to register their car, privacy advocates would be up in arms about it "How dare the government force me to put a unique identifier on my car tied to my real identity!" "This is a clear violation of free speech rights since it will let the police drive by a protected speech rally and collect the names of all of the attendees based on their car license numbers" "They won't have any effect on solving crime because criminals will just remove theirs or steal someone elses"

      Yet, since cars are already required to have license plates, everyone accepts it as "normal". Few people would now argue that cars should not be registered with license plates, even though it's arguably more of a privacy violation than license plate cameras since it removes any anonymity from your car. And license plate numbers are regularly used to solve crimes involving cars. (car theft, hit-and-run, child abduction, etc)

      Maybe if license plate cameras do become ubiquitous, they will become the new "normal" without any of the chilling effects or misuse that have been predicted.

    2. Re:Slave Mentality Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if license plate cameras do become ubiquitous, they will become the new "normal" without any of the chilling effects or misuse that have been predicted.

      That would only be true for something that could be abused without much or no impact. However, this seems to assume that because there are some things that haven't been abused to the point of catastrophe, that must be true for everything else. There have been many corrupt governments in history, and no government is immune to this. Being cautious is understandable. Not wanting to give more power that the government doesn't need to the government is also understandable (especially if it could, and likely will, be abused). Things like the Patriot Act and the TSA are awful, in my opinion, for instance.

  36. Expectation of privacy is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Supreme Court's "expectation of privacy" approach to Fourth Amendment law made sense back when surveillance of an individual cost money and time. Now that approach is leading inexorably to a total surveillance society. The technology to track all of us is cheap and getting cheaper. Storing 50 locations per day per American citizen for 10 years takes about half a petabyte of storage, which you can buy in just one rack for about $500,000. The few people who try to evade the surveillance system, by eschewing cell phones, cars, credit card, Facebook pages, etc., will stand out and be subjected to special tracking methods, heightened police scrutiny and possible prosecution. The ACLU is right to call attention to where all this is taking us.

  37. Re:Dont drive by Jeng · · Score: 1

    The means of transportation that we used 150 years ago are still available to us today, but using them makes it so conspicuous that you are effectively tracked anyway.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  38. Why doesn't anyone fix this broken system? by ChilyWily · · Score: 1

    And the sad fact is that this is being discussed now but has been going on unfettered for a while:

    http://www.parkingtoday.com/articledetails.php?id=788

    If this is such an important tool (and I can see that part of the argument as well), why did the people who are responsible for instituting this into law enforcement not put in proper checks and balances?

    If governments had shown good balance and restraint in favor of the people, the use of this would engender trust among all. Yet, the covert way in which this crept into many different venues of life implies that accountability to the public was never really high on the list for the legislators (who did not do their job in writing checks and balances) and much less for the elected officials who signed off on the payments for this system without asking the same questions*. Yet, writing checks and balances into Law, being open and transparent can be done today. Yet, where do we find anyone in a position (of power) who benefits from this stuff, to be honorable enough to bring balance here?

    * I realize most of the public won't even understand what is happening here but the fact remains that a true servant of the public good would look out for them even when no one notices or cares. Good policy, open governance is good regardless of applaud.

  39. They should scan and check . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should scan and check for warrants, fines, BOLOs and vehicles involved in crimes.

    All other license plate data should be permenantly deleted within 24 hours.

  40. Jacked: Auto Theft Task Force by Jeng · · Score: 1

    If you want to see these scanners in use then watch Jacked.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1280619/

    They drive around in SUV's with reinforced bumpers with the scanners mounted around the SUV so any vehicle near them is automatically scanned.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  41. Who's the enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mind the government knowing more about me than I do myself. But I do mind my employer, supermarket, Google, ISP etc collecting data on me.

  42. This crap is already more prolific than you think by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVlOFOiCP7Q&feature=related Sarasota police have been using VeriPlate for years. I think VeriPlate may have changed it's name, but here's a link to one distributor of this technology: http://www.ndi-rs.com/NDI/NDI-ANPR-ALPR-Mobile-Systems/16/systems/ The potential for abuse is definite.

    In theory, and perhaps in current practice too, this technology can be used to create dossiers on people's traveling habits. Of course, with a little creativity, it could be used for more than that. If you asked me, I'd tell you with confidence that this technology is intrusive and being abused. And you've really got to be careful what toys you give to the same thugs who support the world's largest prison population, as well as trade crime (or prison income) on the stock market. Yeah, crime is a very big industry in the US, and that is nothing to be proud of.

    In Florida, we have no-fault insurance. To drive, you are legally compelled to have insurance. When you drop your insurance, your license is automatically suspended. I know drivers must be responsible by some means, but I find it interesting, this collusion/symbiosis between the mafia, or "insurance" companies and law-enforcement. You'd be very surprised to learn how many people are in jail for driving on suspended licenses, automatically suspended, sometimes for late payments. I cannot help but to find it odd that we must pay a corporation protection money for what we might do. It isn't like when we die, our remaining family receives a rebate for what never did, but payed for anyway. That's just one aspect of this crap-technology that is related and bothers the hell out of me. There's a lot more.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  43. Cameras Do Not Prevent Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They put these things on bridges, so they can take a photograph of your car, your license, and probably your mug too.
    They know who's going, and who's leaving. If two cars pass every 10 secs, then they will easily store over a half million
    records in a month's time.

    They tell residents this will good for everybody, because they will use it to catch the "bad guy" before they
    break into somebody's home, but this is a lie. Cameras do not prevent crime. They don't have any real data to
    backup their claims, but yet they still install them. They're not telling you the whole truth.

    They might as well install a video camera on your driveway, because that is exactly what they're doing.
    Invading your privacy for the sake of their pocket book.

  44. Avoid the fate????? by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"In some cases, we know that the worst-case scenarioâ"vast databases with records of movements of massive numbers of peopleâ"is already happening. To avoid this fate "

    Avoid this fate? Are they kidding? There is absolutely NO WAY to guarantee citizens this information is going to be maintained according to any rules, whatsoever. If the information is collected, it *WILL* be stored, it *WILL* be accessible by the FBI/CIA/DHS/whatever, regardless of what laws are in place.

    Sorry to have to break this news. The only truly secure and non-abusable information is that which is not collected in the first place.

  45. Your Privacy Has Become A Commodity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might tell you this data is stored for one or two months, but this becomess meaningless when the data is shared.

    They might think it's a good way to make some money, so they will sell it, or share it.
    Millions of records will be shared.

    Then, local spying becomes a global spying issue. They will be able to track your vehicle across the
    country, from NY to California.

  46. LPR as a TOOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can License Plate Recognition (LPR) be used as a tool to prevent and resolve crimes from occurring while protecting citizens from abuse? I have seen the technology first hand be used to capture stolen vehicles, arrest violent felons, arrest terrorists, and Amber alerts. The License Plate can be tracked to a GPS location and date of scan. Since this data is ONLY accessible to Law Enforcement, there is really no threat that it can be used to unlawfully track a vehicle. Since the data is ONLY accessible to Law Enforcement, there is very little chance an officer would track a random vehicle without a purpose.

    Scans are only half the equation and are meaningless without a hot-list. A hot-list is a record of warrants, suspects, vehicles in a crime, stolen vehicles, stolen license plates, and/or traffic violations. A hot-list allows the MATCH that Law Enforcement cares about. This allows them to keep their eyes on the road while the cameras look for vehicles that SHOULD be pulled over. For most Law Enforcement Agencies, 90% only care about real-time hits against their plates of interest, but now Detectives, Homeland Security, FBI, and other investigative agencies are able to piece together a more complete picture of suspects using older data.

    Most recently, LPR has been used to store historical data and this has some people concerned that they can be tracked. Again, since the data is ONLY accessible to Law Enforcement, there is really no threat that it can be used to unlawfully track a vehicle. The old data can be used to determine if a sex offender had been parked near an elementary school on a regular basis. The old data can be used to determine unknown addresses where a felon frequents. In reality, there really isn't enough of data to make it useful. We are talking about a 20% chance your vehicle has ever been scanned (much much less in rural areas), and we are talking about ALL the times it was on the road. All the times you have gone to the super market, mall, or sports games. The technology is definitely not capable of tracking a vehicle like GPS monitors. It is capable of giving rare tip about where a vehicle might have been at a specific time. It is up to Law Enforcement to determine if that rare tip is useful in saving lives and preventing crime.

    As far as hot-lists for outstanding license fees... well, there are only 2 things you can't avoid: death & taxes. If you don't like the unfair tax policies, blame a politician.

  47. Anonymous's Law of Technology Abuse (no. ??) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any technology implemented by government that might possibly be used by the government to control the populace, will be, until a more effective form of abuse is created.

  48. The ACLU are terrorists. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Shoot the terrorists!

    Then everyone will be safe from disquieting questions.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  49. dont use a license plate by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    Yet another reason to take up cycling.

  50. And then there is medical insurance by nudibranchOne · · Score: 1

    I am sorry, that medical procedure will not be covered under your insurance because you have not been taking the medication (that made you sick/create a risk of liver failure or heart attack/the mail-provided medication was lost in delivery) prescribed by your physician.