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."

42 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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 /.
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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 /.
    10. 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.........
  2. 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 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'.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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?
    6. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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? :)

    11. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.
    2. 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
  6. 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 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.

  7. 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 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.
  8. 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.

  9. Re:The solution is simple by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 2

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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!