The Rapid Rise of License Plate Readers

An anonymous reader writes "Today, tens of thousands of license plate readers (LPRs) are being used by law enforcement agencies all over the country—practically every week, local media around the country report on some LPR expansion. But the system's unchecked and largely unmonitored use raises significant privacy concerns. License plates, dates, times, and locations of all cars seen are kept in law enforcement databases for months or even years at a time. In the worst case, the New York State Police keeps all of its LPR data indefinitely. No universal standard governs how long data can or should be retained."

Comments

wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Anonymous Coward]

the patriot acts, drones and the war on terror was just a paranoid delusion?

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Anonymous Coward]

The slippery slope is not real. Keep telling yourself that.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Penurious Penguin]

It's Tr a pWire, not "Trip". Such an important subject deserves accurate spelling.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Beardydog]

But it's exactly like having twenty police officers on every single street corner hand writing voluminous logs of every plate they see, along with the current date and time.

Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[dgatwood]

Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.

All that tells us is that legally, it isn't an technically an invasion of privacy, per se. However, the potential for abuse is almost unlimited, and as such, it is not something the government (or any private party, either) should ever be allowed to do—not for privacy reasons, but because it gives the government nearly unlimited power over the people. As Jefferson once put it, "A government afraid of its citizens is a democracy; citizens afraid of government is tyranny."

The big thing you're missing is that the public would never authorize the expenditure for such a colossal waste of resources if this were done with humans, which means that although that could theoretically be done, it can't happen in practice. One reason the public would never authorize it is that it would be one very large step towards the panopticon, towards the world of Big Brother, etc. It would massively creep out the public to see twenty police officers on every street corner, to the point that everyone would feel constantly afraid for their freedom—afraid to say or do anything, for fear that they might accidentally cross some line and get arrested. That is the essence of totalitarianism.

Cameras on every corner are really no different from officers on every corner. What makes them far more dangerous is that they are less daunting psychologically—less likely to cause the public to realize the risk they pose—yet the totalitarian threat they represent is exactly the same. This means that they represent a way for government to take enormous strides towards increasing its power over the people without the public ever noticing. Nothing could be more dangerous to democracy and freedom. Not all the tin-pot dictators in the world, not the corrupt politicians in the pockets of big business, not terrorists, not whatever country we're ostensibly at military war or cold war with. Nothing.

The nature of government is to march determinedly towards totalitarianism. In a free society, it is the public's greatest responsibility to periodically push them back with such vigor that they are forced to retreat to a more balanced position. This is potentially a very large step towards totalitarianism. It is, therefore, the public's supreme duty, in the face of such an overstep, to slap the government's hand and say, "No. Bad government. No cookie." As it is oft said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[jhoegl]

Society requires governance, governance requires enforcement, enforcement is for society.
What abuse could be gathered from someone knowing where a car was at some time? Perhaps that it was there... and nothing else?
Just because a car is somewhere doesnt mean you were there.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Anonymous Coward]

All that tells us is that legally, it isn't an technically an invasion of privacy, per se. However, the potential for abuse is almost unlimited, and as such, it is not something the government (or any private party, either) should ever be allowed to do—not for privacy reasons, but because it gives the government nearly unlimited power over the people.

This doesn't follow. Lots of common, everyday objects and activities have "potential for abuse" one could describe as "almost unlimited". Automatic weapons. Automobiles. Kitchen knives. Ball-point pens.

To draw an uncomfortable parallel, often times whether the existence or possession of a tool is deemed legal or illegal depends on significant, legitimate use. Automobiles, kitchen knives, and ball-point pens all have significant, legitimate uses. The fact that one can abuse them, and that there is no prior restraint on you to prevent such abuse, is not the applicable standard. (With regard to automatic weapons, it is a subject for debate, but one outside the realm of the current topic.)

So the question becomes whether or not LPR has significant, legitimate use, by law enforcement or anyone else. I'd say the ability to collect circumstantial evidence placing a vehicle owned by an individual at the scene of a crime would constitute significant legitimate use. So the question becomes creating transparency and oversight to limit abuse, not attempt to put the technological genie back into the bottle.

Besides, at some point LPRs could be as simple as an app for a smartphone, or for a headmounted display like Google glasses, and then lots of people will have them. On what basis would law enforcement then be enjoined not to deploy them?

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[lister king of smeg]

Tell that to the people on a grand jury, oh wait you have no defense on a grand jury, and you have no knowledge that one is being conducted. And then when it gets to the trial that is there to put you away for what ever they can think of (remember there are oh so many laws on the books that are simply unenforced but still in effect including bans on sodomy, not going to church on Sunday, having an affair, and many more ) you look oh so guilt, and even though it is circumstantial you sure look guilty.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[TheLink]

Yeah if they get cheap enough, I'm sure private individuals/corporations will be buying them for all sorts of reasons. Add face tracking and recognition for profit.

Let's see how the cops, their bosses (and mistresses?) like it when we start watching them too.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Anne Thwacks]

Yes but they did not post their logs on the Internet for criminals to steal, or leave them on USB sticks in popular places.

The government has proven completely unable to keep data safe (cf Wikileaks), and this is not about to change now, even if there is an election in the US.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[fearofcarpet]

The nature of government is to march determinedly towards totalitarianism. In a free society, it is the public's greatest responsibility to periodically push them back with such vigor that they are forced to retreat to a more balanced position. This is potentially a very large step towards totalitarianism. It is, therefore, the public's supreme duty, in the face of such an overstep, to slap the government's hand and say, "No. Bad government. No cookie." As it is oft said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The worst examples of totalitarianism from the 20th Century occurred when governments lost the ability to govern either through economic calamity (e.g., the rise of the USSR and the Nazi regime) or intervention by foreign powers (e.g., American intervention in South America and the Middle East). Charismatic megalomaniacs, usually backed by a loyal military, then rise to power through the promise of a new Utopia that quickly collapses into brutal totalitarianism. The slow march of a well-intentioned, functioning government towards totalitarianism is a nonexistent threat in modern times.

That is not to say that I disagree with your broader point. The government should be afraid of The People because they have the power to vote for a government that represents their best interests--e pluribus unum--but modern American politics is corrupted by special interest money and uses wedge issues and micro-targeted ad buys to leverage an uninformed electorate to vote for power-hungry asshats that represent Money instead of People. A politician that stands up against this sort of overreach--and these LPRs are unequivocally an invasion of privacy--will be branded "soft on crime" before dropping 15 points in the polls from the non-stop Willie Horton ads.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[fearofcarpet]

This doesn't follow. Lots of common, everyday objects and activities have "potential for abuse" one could describe as "almost unlimited". Automatic weapons. Automobiles. Kitchen knives. Ball-point pens.

Is it really fair to compare these potential existential threats to the non-existential threat of the creeping invasion of privacy in the name of security? If someone abuses automatic weapons, it results in murder, but abusing LPRs is about abusing laws that were written before this technology existed to extract more fines from people. The former is obvious and elicits a sharp reaction from the media, while the latter just blends into all the other annoyances that we have come to accept in the Post 9/11 World. I would say LPRs are more like body scanners, which were installed at airports without any public comment and which are demonstrably useless at thwarting terrorists, but which justify the ever-increasing DHS/TSA budget.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Stirling Newberry]

http://boingboing.net/2012/06/08/canadas-warrantless-surveill-2.html

Thank you for your patriotic pre-support of pre-crime legislation citizen. There will be an extra pillow in your cell!

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Targon]

You misunderstand the concern here. Do you feel that you should be tracked and monitored by the government when you are not involved in any crimes? If there is an investigation of criminal activity, then license plate readers would be very useful, but what about rogue police officers who just decide to track the movements of individuals? Monitoring everyone in the hopes of discovering a crime goes against the idea of being innocent until proven guilty, and most people feel that it is abusive for police to pull someone over who is not breaking any laws.

What if you worked nights, drove a regular car, and every night you were pulled over to-from your job or to get "lunch"? You might get a bit offended by that, and that is when driving at night IS seen as unusual. Now, what about the police just keeping a record of every car on the road, with no reason for it? If they pull you over for a traffic violation, then it makes sense to speed up the process of issuing a ticket, but if they just randomly collect license plate information, then what?

So, does MONITORING of people who are not suspected of a crime seem like it is good for society? That isn't enforcement, and that is the problem. How about if a given police officer decided to use blanket monitoring to trace everywhere you go, for no reason? That starts to sound like it might be a bit paranoid, but it also sounds like the government keeping tabs on EVERYONE, and a police state is NOT what the USA is all about.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[jimbolauski]

But it's exactly like having twenty police officers on every single street corner hand writing voluminous logs of every plate they see, along with the current date and time.
Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.

It may be perfectly legal to do but I know I wouldn't support any elected official that supported these measures.
Just because they hive a right to do it doesn't make it right.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Relayman]

There is therapy for people who are paranoid.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[Relayman]

I have no problem with this. In fact, the more data they have the better. You would think that modern technology would allow them to process the data faster but law enforcement isn't usually using state-of-the art technology.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[JDG1980]

But it's exactly like having twenty police officers on every single street corner hand writing voluminous logs of every plate they see, along with the current date and time. Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.

This kind of legal thinking (and I know you were probably being sarcastic here, but this is actually the established US case law) goes to show that lawyers can sometimes be just as autistic as computer nerds. A big enough difference in degree becomes a degree in kind. Yes, you don't have an "expectation of privacy" in public places, but it's one thing to say that when it applies to something that happens to be overheard or seen by someone nearby, and quite another to say that it's OK to turn all public property into one giant surveillance zone.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[BVis]

Doesn't sound too paranoid. What GP is describing is possible. If anything, it's pessimistic.

It's not paranoia if they ARE watching.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[bjdevil66]

But it's exactly like having twenty police officers on every single street corner hand writing voluminous logs of every plate they see, along with the current date and time.

Since that could be done without warrant, this is obviously perfectly fine, and not even worth thinking about.

This is the exact same argument that cops used for placing GPS trackers without warrants on suspect's vehicles. That argument was shot down 9-0 by the Supreme Court.

Some of the justices were upset that the other justices didn't widen that case's ruling to deal with this kind of tracking as well. They're going to have to deal with it ASAP, before every form of electronic tracking (facial recognition, LPR, photo radar, GPS in cars for "gas tax collection", etc.) all become socially unavoidable. (And you can bet that Congress - swamped with lobbyists - isn't going to directly deal with this, either.)

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[BVis]

I disagree. It's not the government's business what store I go to, who I visit for dinner, or what church (or lack thereof) I go to.

Unfortunately, they're just collecting information that is publicly available, albeit more efficiently. I don't know what can really be done about this. We could pass a law that restricts law enforcement from storing or using this data unless there is a warrant issued for someone's arrest. But, as we all know, people don't always follow the law. Maybe the evidence couldn't be used at trial, but that doesn't mean law enforcement wouldn't use it to gather potentially embarrassing information on a person of interest with the goal of using it as leverage to persuade someone to cooperate.

But, come to think of it, they can do that now, it's just harder and more expensive. This doesn't really change anything. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[boristdog]

I just had Jury Duty this week. Simple criminal case, I wasn't picked for the jury.

But the chatter in the halls by the other potential jurors was scary:
"Well, he wouldn't be up there if he wasn't guilty."
"Someone that age should know better than to steal!"
"He looks guilty as hell."
etc.

So do YOU want to be put in front of these "peers" of yours?

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[cayenne8]

Why has no one come up with a nice, simple way of defeating these systems???

I've been trying to read up on surrounding my plates with hi intensity IR leds...but so far, nothing successful done out there that I can find.

I don't mind my plates being readable to the naked, human eye...but I don't car for the cameras watching and recording my every move.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[dgatwood]

The worst examples of totalitarianism from the 20th Century occurred when governments lost the ability to govern either through economic calamity (e.g., the rise of the USSR and the Nazi regime) or intervention by foreign powers (e.g., American intervention in South America and the Middle East). Charismatic megalomaniacs, usually backed by a loyal military, then rise to power through the promise of a new Utopia that quickly collapses into brutal totalitarianism. The slow march of a well-intentioned, functioning government towards totalitarianism is a nonexistent threat in modern times.

9/11, and the economic crisis that followed, look remarkably like the government lost the ability to govern through economic calamity and intervention by foreign powers. Not a complete breakdown of the system, mind you, but the question is whether it was enough of a breakdown to cause society to let the government's promise of security lead the country into, as you put it, a new Utopia that collapses into totalitarianism.

The inability to fly without being photographed naked or felt up says yes. The rapid rise of license plate scanners says yes. The PATRIOT act and the secret courts that resulted from it say yes. The extrajudicial internment camp at Guantanamo Bay says yes. Need I continue?

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[dgatwood]

What abuse could be gathered from someone knowing where a car was at some time?

Short list?

• You are one of the five cars that happened to be near three murders. We don't know which one of you did it, so we're going to beat you all until one of you confesses.
• We computed your speed at 65.1 in a 65 zone. Here is your speeding ticket. Sorry the Interstate is clogged up with cars, but nobody is driving close to the speed limit all of a sudden. Since nobody is going 65, we've decided to lower the limit to 55 so that we can continue to bring in revenue.
• I think that girl is pretty. If I track her car everywhere she goes, I can figure out where she'll be, and always be there. (There's no stalker like po[lice] stalkers like no stalker I know.)
• I see you have parked your car near [x] and [y]. They are known communists. We know you must be one, too, so you have been blacklisted and will never act again.

Seriously, read about the McCarthy era and tell me that the U.S. couldn't have descended into an absolute hellhole had those government officials had access to more information about the location of its citizenry. Sane people don't trust government because government has routinely violated that trust. That's not saying you have to be paranoid and believe that the government is always lying about everything, but a healthy degree of skepticism and a strong set of reins to prevent excessive government power over the people is generally a good idea.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[dgatwood]

This doesn't follow. Lots of common, everyday objects and activities have "potential for abuse" one could describe as "almost unlimited". Automatic weapons. Automobiles. Kitchen knives. Ball-point pens.

Not true. The potential for abuse for all those things is inherently limited. A gun has only so many bullets, and when you run out, the police are going to shoot your sorry ***. If you're running pedestrians over with an automobile, you'll eventually have to stop for gas, and when you run out, the police.... You see the pattern.

More to the point, at least for the moment, all of those things require a human user. At most, a single person can control a couple of automatic weapons, one car, a couple of kitchen knives or ballpoint pens, etc. Therefore, the abuse is fundamentally limited by the number of people you have. As soon as you're talking about cameras that catalog information en masse, you're stepping over what should be a bright line from being limited by manpower to being unlimited in your surveillance ability.

Besides, at some point LPRs could be as simple as an app for a smartphone, or for a headmounted display like Google glasses, and then lots of people will have them. On what basis would law enforcement then be enjoined not to deploy them?

On the basis that the government being allowed to collect nearly unlimited amounts of information about the citizenry is inherently dangerous no matter how much information the citizenry is allowed to collect about the government.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[TheLink]

Couldn't they just put an IR blocking filters on the cameras?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cut-off_filter

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[GargamelSpaceman]

Now that they can see us better we get to find out all the new ways we look suspicious for doing the things we;ve always done. We'll be profiled. The more they can see, the less easy it will become not to look suspicious. For instance, you are allowed to have a jacknife ( or even a gun, but let's just keep it to jacknife for now ). If you keep it in your pocket then nobody knows you've got it. But would you ( an adult, maybe a parent who always carries a jacknife in their pocket so they don't have to break their teeth prying into stuff and opening blister packs, going in for a parent teacher's converence ) would you like to be scanned with a pocket x-ray to enter? What if everywhere was like getting on a plane? Wouldn't you stop carrying a jacknife? Who wants the hassle right? The more they can see the more ways you look suspicious and the more ways you will have to adjust your life in order to not draw unwanted attention. Other people suck, and dealing with them sucks. Good fences ( and good privacy ) makes good neighbors.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[CAIMLAS]

So based on your Orwellian tautology, a totalitarian regime in the vein of 1984 would actually be demonstrative of a perfect society? It's the perfect mix of governance and enforcement.

Here's a handful of abuses a cop in his car would be able to perform:
* know where you were, every day for the past whenever
* without knowing who the driver is, observe regular driving patterns
* know where you live (or at least where the vehicle is registered - maybe you remember the concern when this became possible from a police car?)
* know whether you travel to or from a 'crime' area on a regular basis
* potentially know (using some of the newer systems) if any crimes coincide with your regular visits to a certain locale
* probably 100 other things statist statisticians have decided can be inferred

The truth is, you've got it backwards. Society doesn't require governance; government requires a society. You can not have a government with fractured society - not for any significant period of time. That's the idea behind Democracy here in the West: you avoid totalitarianism by providing a fluid, non-derisive, upheaval-free method of societal governance change.

When you have a statist government moving towards totalitarianism, the sheer ability for self-regulation is being slowly denied. A growing totalitarian government essentially strangles democracy slowly, killing the society and culture which built it, replacing it with a shallow stereotyped shell. You can clearly see this in every totalitarian state that has grown and fallen over the past century: the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, North Korea, etc.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[PyroMosh]

I'm not going to argue for McCarthyism. But you're providing a false comparison.

In this instance, you're demonizing the tools themselves as a problem. But under McCarthyism, government used the tools of the day, tools we *still* use today and see nothing wrong with when applied correctly.

This isn't, and shouldn't be an argument about tools. It should be an argument about *rules*. Due process, and who gets to collect and use data and how.

I don't have any problem with government collecting massive amounts of public information. I just want the way that data is collected, archived and retrieved to be regulated.

You wan to know what cars were on Maple St. between 1:00AM and 3:00AM on the 5th of May, because of a murder investigation? We've got the records. Any sane judge would issue a warrant to retrieve those records when a serious crime like murder is involved.

You want to check the records for what time your ex-wife's car left her house on Monday, because you're spiteful and you happen to be a cop? Sorry, you don't get the records without a warrant.

Will there be rule breakers? Probably. Will there be abuses? Probably. But we have that now with the current tools, and we punish these folks when we catch them.

• Just because we have stalker cops, doesn't mean we don't give cops police cars.
• Just because we had McCarthyism doesn't mean we stopped having Congressional investigation or wiretaps.
• Your speed limit example is just wrong. If you go 65.1 in a 65, you can get a ticket now. Just because you don't *see* a cop there doesn't make it suddenly legal.
• Your First example, five cars near three murders, starts out sane. We could do that today if this was discovered by eyewitness or by security camera footage at a gas station. But then you make the leap to "the cops will beat all five suspects". This could happen, or it could not. It would have everything to do with bad cops and nothing to do with the tools. It could happen today.

Don't blame tools for bad actors using them in bad faith. Put controls in place to restrict how these tools can be used.

We give cops lethal weapons. But we hold them responsible for how they use them. I think they can handle *cameras* if we apply sane standards to them.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[fearofcarpet]

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with the outcome, just questioning the mechanism. My infant son not only has to go through the porno scanners, he needs his own f-ing passport! And there was a story on /. just yesterday about a new ruling that people talking on cell phones don't have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" against eavesdropping by law enforcement. But the last step before a government loses control is the a mass exodus of wealth, as rich people are closer to the power structures and can see calamity coming from further away than us ordinary folk. There is no way that the ultra-rich, the oligarchs, the dynastic families, the bankers--whatever you want to call them--will allow a government to destabilize while their money is parked in its economy (which is why many oil-rich African countries are broke). Right now the US government is seeing a huge influx of capital as people dump their money into treasury bonds to protect it from the unpredictable, volatile markets of the ongoing global recession, so I'm not too worried... yet. Once I see large-scale divestment from government bonds, I'm headed to South America to raise sheep.

Re:wait, I thought stuff like this & tripwire

[GameboyRMH]

Haha yep that's how the law sees it...

privacy?

[ralphdaugherty]

I thought we past thinking we had any privacy left.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your license plate is always showing. I don't understand how anyone can claim it's private.

Re:privacy?

[binarylarry]

I think we need to attach infrared camera "discouragement" to the back of our cars.

Re:privacy?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Your license plate is always showing. I don't understand how anyone can claim it's private.

I don't know why we need to go through this every damn time; but here goes:

Tracking and correlation. Yes, obviously, a license plate is visible, and passers-by have always been able to see them. However, without a network of passers-by observing license plates on every corner, and chattering amongst themselves about which ones are seen where, when, that means almost nothing. Only the most overtly memorable and/or suspicious license plate would merit accurate memory of time/place, much less multiple time/place recordings allowing for inferences about travel.

With automation and machine vision, highly accurate recording and correlation across fairly broad areas, in space and time, becomes relatively easy and cheap.

Surely this difference is obvious?

Re:privacy?

[bev_tech_rob]

And law enforcement will just outlaw such 'discouragement' if they don't already and write you up when they see it...

Re:privacy?

[BradleyUffner]

I don't know why we need to go through this every damn time; but here goes:

We have to go over it "every damn time" because people keep saying that publicly visible things are somehow privacy invasions. Once people stop claiming that then people will stop correcting them.

Re:privacy?

[ThatsMyNick]

Or move to a country that doesnt track its citizens using license plates. Or you know make your vote and voice count in your own country and limit these.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Public is public. Don't like having a license plate? Don't own a car.

Says an Anonymous Coward...

Re:privacy?

[similar_name]

So when you're tracked by a system that recognizes you the solution is to not go outside? The government tracking all of its citizen's movements is what the issue is about. If you're okay with that kind of government tracking then argue that. Stating that license plates are already visible is largely irrelevant.

Re:privacy?

[bpeikes]

Could you get a restraining order against someone who just followed you around? I'm not sure you could, unless there was some reason to think that they were also going to invade your privacy. Why wouldn't movie stars have restraining orders against all of the paparazzi if you were allowed to do this?

Re:privacy?

[Darkness404]

Moving is the only sane option right now. Voting doesn't work, sure, you can vote for the lesser evil and get slightly less tyranny or you can vote a protest vote for the Libertarian/Green/Constitution party, but in most elections they have no chance of winning. People in the US don't want freedom they want "security", security to do what no one seems to know and because most Americans haven't stepped outside their country and realized that many, many, countries work just fine without having an oppressive 1984-esque police state and are as safe, if not safer than the US.

Exploring your options outside of the US is the only sane thing you can do right now.

Re:privacy?

[dbet]

No one is claiming your license plate is private. It's the tracking and storing of data that's a concern.

Similarly, no one is claiming the heat escaping your house is private, but you still need a warrant to use an infrared camera to "see" inside someone's house. Even though the camera works by seeing what *leaves* the house.

Re:privacy?

[similar_name]

People view the tracking part as an invasion of privacy. Consider the ubiquity of cameras and facial recognition (and other bio-metrics). If the argument is that license plates are public and therefore tracking them is not a public invasion does the same argument apply when technology makes it possible to know and store everything you do when you step outside?

Re:privacy?

[Frosty Piss]

It means they can ( and will ) track people that visit other people or places or meetings that they classify as "subversive" - like political parties they dissagree with. Like people organizing labor. Like people who are members of pro-pot groups. Socialists. Anti-totalitarianists... SUBVERSIVE TYPES LIKE YOU......

Re:privacy?

[similar_name]

is not a public invasion

is not a privacy invasion.

Re:privacy?

[cheater512]

Yes but it used to be that you had to physically see it for it to be of any use.

E.g. Police are looking for a stolen car with the plate ABC - 1234
Or you are pulled over and they run your plate to double check.

It was never there so police could track where you have gone for the last 5 years.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there are going to be some differences when it comes to public figures, as the motives for paparazzi are easily understood, and they're clearly operating within the First Amendment. They may break other laws along the way, but that's another matter. And fwiw, there are invasion of privacy torts that come up every so often, but the activities need to be pretty egregious (e.g. the photos of Jennifer Aniston sunbathing in her backyard 10 years ago, IIRC).

OTOH, if someone is following a completely private person, there's clearly no good reason, and the police will definitely get involved. A restraining order probably wouldn't be too difficult to obtain if properly requested.

Re:privacy?

[SydShamino]

Most of our laws are written around the fact that we are humans. For example, there are pretty severe laws about pouring certain chemicals into the ground, but very different laws about pouring clean water into the ground, because as humans certain chemicals could greatly poison the ground and groundwater, while pouring water into the ground is only unlawful when it's a waste of clean water in a drought. If human physiology were different, these laws would be different.

The laws and customs related to public privacy are all based around the concept that humans have poor memories, which are often forgotten in moments, and are most certainly forgotten in days, months, and years, and are absolutely forgotten upon in about a century. Moreover, any "memories" which are more durable require extensive human time and effort to produce and catalog - something which is very expensive and thus limited.

Our laws and customs were designed taking this into account. Now, after however many centuries of development of our laws and customs, in the last five years we have means to augment fundamental human nature. Those that only understand the letter of the laws and customs written long ago see this as changing nothing, for they view the letters in a vacuum and ignore human nature. Those that understand the spirit of the laws and customs understand that they were established for a given time and place, and if the circumstances change the laws and customs should as well.

Re:privacy?

[slazzy]

Check out my new paint job: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mr38/189121025/lightbox/

Re:privacy?

[pepty]

Your license plate is always showing. I don't understand how anyone can claim it's private.

With automation and machine vision, highly accurate recording and correlation across fairly broad areas, in space and time, becomes relatively easy and cheap.

Surely this difference is obvious?

On the other hand unmarked police cars have been able to follow your car wherever it goes without a warrant, and that was not considered a privacy violation. While it would be unusual to think you're being followed by the police, it wouldn't be considered to be contravening your rights or your expectations of privacy. Traditionally the expectation of privacy has been about what, when, and where the state can observe as opposed to the level of convenience a method affords. What precedents would you consider to be relevant to the tracking and correlation issue?

Re:privacy?

[Kjella]

Those resources may be limited, but from an individual's point of view they might not be. A famous celebrity may find that there are paparazzis following her all the time, the police can be following a suspected mafia boss almost constantly. People can hire private investigators to follow their SO around because they suspect they're sleeping with somebody else, no celebrity status or criminal activity required. Hell, if you avoid harassing them and turning into a stalker you can probably do it yourself. If no right is being violated when it happens to one person, why should their rights be violated when it happens to everyone? It's very different from when say the NSA wiretaps domestic phone calls without warrant, because wiretapping one phone call would also be a violation.

Re:privacy?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I would say that there are two issues that don't get consciously acknowledged enough; but that are assumed when a 'what, when, and where' style privacy expectation is formed...

The first is ubiquity(which is almost identical to cost, over a modest time horizon). Being shadowed by a cop, say, costs nontrivial money. I don't have an absolute protection against being shadowed; but I do have a reasonable expectation that I would only be followed if there were some reason to go to the trouble(an analogous case might be the assorted awkwardness that facebook photo-tagging has spawned: Obviously, I can't claim to have any privacy right to the visible fact that I showed up at a party; but, historically, my presence there would likely only be remembered by my friends, or if I were a celebrity, or if I did a naked kegstand. Now, even the most tedious attendees are recorded in trivially searchable form).

The second is inference: With more advanced technology, you can gain new insights from old data. The hunting-grow-ops-with-FLIRcams cases are a good example: Do you have a privacy right to the outside of your house? Umm, it's outside and visible from the street... How about the inside? Now, with new imaging technology, I can draw strong inferences about the inside of your house just by looking at the outside. Once the fancy terahertz stuff gets cheaper and more compact, this should get even more dramatic. In these cases, new technology means that information in which I don't have a privacy interest can now be, with some clever math, turned into information that I do have a privacy interest in. This presents a bit of a problem.

Re:privacy?

[dgatwood]

What foreign languages do you speak? Because last I checked, the UK was the US's lap dog, with most of the other English-speaking Commonwealth nations falling quickly into line.

No, you pretty much have two options: put up with it or find a way to fight it (preferrably legally, either in the court system or in the court of public opinion). If you don't fight tyranny wherever it begins, it will eventually spread to wherever you went to avoid it. And then it's too late.

Re:privacy?

[dgatwood]

Nope. Public is public. Don't like having a license plate? Don't own a car.

Don't worry, citizen. We are more than capable of tracking you with facial recognition.

—B.B.

Don't like being tracked? Don't have a face. No, wait....

Re:privacy?

[BradleyUffner]

People view the tracking part as an invasion of privacy. Consider the ubiquity of cameras and facial recognition (and other bio-metrics). If the argument is that license plates are public and therefore tracking them is not a public invasion does the same argument apply when technology makes it possible to know and store everything you do when you step outside?

I believe so. It's called "public" for a reason. There is nothing stopping a private citizen from building the same kind of database. I see trying to stop the lawful gathering of public data as a bigger affront to our rights than actually collecting it. I think it's the actions that are taken based on the data that become a concern, and that's where the controls need to be placed.

Re:privacy?

[lister king of smeg]

license plates have light for illumination so they can be read. those light just might some how start imitating more energy in the IR part of the spectrum than before.

Re:privacy?

[lister king of smeg]

so should i ware as mask and look like a serial killer/anonymous-occupy member?

Re:privacy?

[lister king of smeg]

The celebs want the attention and there picture in the news so people remember them other wise they would not make money off of their name appearing in a movie.
normal people don't want stalked. we have law against people doing so.
the gov seems to think that its okay if they do, because they would never do anything to you unless you were doing something wrong, why are you afraid unless your feeling guilty? what did you do? i think you need to come in for interigation.

Re:privacy?

[pentalive]

I doubt if you could get a restraining order against the police force.

Re:privacy?

[cheekyjohnson]

I see trying to stop the lawful gathering of public data as a bigger affront to our rights than actually collecting it.

Our rights? No. This is about the government attempting to record everyone, everywhere. It will not take away our rights if we decide that we don't want our tax dollars used for this purpose.

I think it's the actions that are taken based on the data that become a concern, and that's where the controls need to be placed.

No. Then the system will already be set up, and it's too late. Given the actions of our government and governments throughout history, I don't believe that allowing them to set this up is an intelligent decision. Even if it's "for the children" or "to stop the terrorists."

Re:privacy?

[ohnocitizen]

Exactly, and it sets a horrible precedent. Anything public becomes legally trackable. Your face is always showing. So you can't claim that is private, ergo there's no problem with facial recognition software recognizing and tracking everyplace you go. Suddenly everywhere I go, in a car, on foot, has been noted and recorded. That is the future we are inviting if we do not push back.

Re:privacy?

[SydShamino]

Celebrities are defined as public figures. I think the concept of public figures exists to separate those "more memorable" people from the private citizenry. Even then, though, as with your private investigator and police/mafia suggestions, creation and cataloging of those memories are time-consuming and thus expensive, and they are rarely retroactive.

Re:privacy?

[xenobyte]

license plates have light for illumination so they can be read. those light just might some how start imitating more energy in the IR part of the spectrum than before.

As far as I know there are rules requiring certain lights on a car, and often also ban certain lights that can cause misunderstandings or similar, but lights that emit invisible light cannot cause any problems as they are - invisible. I cannot see how a ring of strong infrared lights around a license plate can be a problem as this light is completely invisible to humans. That most cameras doesn't filter it out isn't a problem traffic-wise; but recordings and pictures may be useless due to light flooding.

I've always wondered - most digital cameras have a built-in UV-filter (make people don't know this and still buy an external UV-filter to put on the lens of their DSLR camera) but no IR-filter? - Why?

For fun, go to a dark room with a standard remote and first take a picture in the darkness, then again while you press something on the remote. If the batteries aren't run down you'll see light as from a flashlight illuminating stuff in front of the remote in the last picture. You saw nothing but the camera picks up the IR-light from the remote and translates it into 'light'.

Similar for UV-light. Use a 'darklight' like often used in clubs which will make 'optical white' glow intensely, and if you take a picture of a dark room illuminated with UV-light, you'll most likely see only the optical white illuminated (it can actually be any color, like seen in UV-paint), but if you see everything somewhat illuminated you have no UV-filter and then you'll need an external filter if you want to take decent pictures outside or just in sunlit rooms.

Re:privacy?

[xenobyte]

Don't like being tracked? Don't have a face. No, wait....

Just put on glasses... it worked for Superman/Clark Kent!

Re:privacy?

[rolfwind]

Your license plate is always showing. I don't understand how anyone can claim it's private.

Think about what you're saying. Always showing. Always showing. Basically the government mandated license plates, fair enough. Now they have thousands of automatic readers. Not quite so fair, is it.

Let's put it another way. The government says the people commit crimes, so you need an identifying name on the back and front of your shirt/jacket. Then they implement machines every quarter mile, at every school, USPS, government building, townhall entrance, etc. And the Private stores/firms join in to get the benefit of robbers, limit liability (government carrot and stick), etc. Are your 4th amendment rights or privacy being violated? Did any one step in this scenario do so or just the sum of progression of steps?

Re:privacy?

[gnasher719]

On the other hand unmarked police cars have been able to follow your car wherever it goes without a warrant, and that was not considered a privacy violation.

Without a warrant, but not without a police-related reason.

In the UK, there was a court case that explained that very well: A police officer claimed to be injured and collected pay without working, but his employer (the police) didn't quite believe him, so they watched his home to see if he was as badly injured as he claimed. He wasn't, it ended up in court, and there was the question whether the police was allowed to do what they did.

Result: While your employer is allowed to check whether you leave your home when you claim you are too sick to work, the police isn't. They have powers/rights that normal people and companies don't have, and with those rights come obligations, so they can't just watch you. However, in this case the police was actually the employer, and as an employer, they can do what other employers can do.

Re:privacy?

[KaoticEvil]

No, I don't feel guilty, and I have nothing to hide, however, where I go and who I visit throughout the day is **MY** business. Not the local cops. I like having what little shreds of privacy I have left in my own PERSONAL, PRIVATE life. It is people like YOU who think that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" that are causing all of MY rights to privacy to be eroded and taken away.

Re:privacy?

[SternisheFan]

What country is that, Mars? That's going the only one left soon.

Re:privacy?

[jbuk]

I think a large part of the reason people buy UV filters for DSLRs is to protect the front element of the lens, it's a lot easier to replace a $10 filter than a whole lens.

Re:privacy?

[SternisheFan]

Being followed around by a few people with an interest in you is absolutely different from being recorded wherever you go by a very large, very powerful organization that could easily ruin your life if it so pleased.

I really wish people would stop trying to come up with stupid analogies. It's our government, and if we don't want them to do this, they should fuck off. Actually, they should do that anyway.

I reccomend that YOU especially should learn to 'go with the flow', or you're going to have a very unhappy life. Reality and your views, well they seem to "clash". Either be smart or be jailed, those are our only options, because this shits going to keep happening whether we want it to or not. I suggest that we should live our lives accordingly.

Re:privacy?

[Targon]

Being able to identify someone with a license plate is not the problem, but when does recognition become monitoring a tracking the movements of individuals? Would you want the police to be monitoring your every move all the time, even if you are not doing anything illegal? This is the issue, the "keeping records" part needs to go away. Make it so any license plates scanned are removed from the system after 30 minutes, unless a ticket is given, and it should again be deleted if there is no reason to keep it after the ticket is contested.

Those who get tickets regularly should know that there is a record of it, so there isn't a problem with it being kept at that point.

Re:privacy?

[Pigeon451]

And so what? This data isn't put out there for the public to examine. I think it's a good idea. For the small invasion of privacy (and it is indeed small -- no one gives a shit when you go to the grocery store), the benefits are large. There are many warrants out on people who drive cars, this would enable tracking THEM. Also, it can be used to examine cars in an area during a robbery or other crime, and determine the direction they went. Or where a car went after a kidnapping. And criminals are stupid, so don't expect them to be clever enough cover up the plates.

If YOU don't want to be tracked, then start taking transit or ride a bike. I would welcome these in my area.

Re:privacy?

[Targon]

The UK isn't a "lap dog". They are friends of the USA, and as such, the USA would also support requests by the UK for a lot of things. The difference is that the US government tends to be a bit more active around the world, like it or not(many in the USA don't like it either), so the UK gets dragged into more things.

Keep in mind that since English is spoken in both the USA and the UK, there is a bond of generally shared language that is not shared by most other countries, and language has always been a key element in feeling someone is either "one of you" of not, which plays into the negative feelings felt by some toward Spanish speaking people who are in the USA, but that is the subject of another discussion.

Now, there IS a bit of a difference here, because anyone who would pick security and abandon freedom for it really are at odds with the reason the USA was founded. People will fight for freedom, and that also means they will go against a government who is pushing security over freedom.

Re:privacy?

[infodragon]

Most digital cameras are very sensitive to infrared light. Put one of those frames on your plate that lights it up so it's easy to see but modify it so it's flooded with IR. Everybody will be able to easily see your plate. The cameras will show a white smear and if you use enough IR the image will bloom enough to muddy the make and model of your car.

I wonder how long before this is illegal. It wont interfere with radar/laser speed traps, doesn't interfere with normal vision; it only screws with cameras.

Re:privacy?

[Hatta]

So you would be OK with the entire contents of this database being made public? So not just the police, but your boss or your ex-girlfriend being able to look up your location whenever they want?

No? That's not OK? Well now that we've established that it's reasonable to feel uncomfortable with some public data being known by some members of the public, can you understand why I'd feel uncomfortable with the police having that information?

If it's truly public, it should be available to anyone and everyone. If it's not truly public, the police should have to get a warrant before they access it.

Re:privacy?

[Jammer6502]

The problem is understanding the spirit of a law that was written too long ago to ask the person what they were thinking. Lawmakers are not required to explain the spirit of the law when they write it, only the legal text itself. In particular, this has caused misunderstandings with the framers of our constitution on bill of rights. Just looking at the first and second amendments we start having issues with separation of church and state (not called out in the legal text but from outside material we know it weighed heavily on the minds of the authors) and a right to bear arms (legal text calls this out but spirit of the amendment is unclear if its for a state militia or self defense/prevention of government tyranny). The only thing that has saved us as a nation up to this point has been an independent and thoughtful Supreme Court (federal appeals courts as well). They have the ability to adjust laws based on the intention/spirit of it. Just make sure they stay as non-political as possible and we stand a chance.

Re:privacy?

[funwithBSD]

This is why I live in California. We can pass initatives to ban this sort of nonsense.

That is, unless it is considered a conservative viewpoint, then it usually gets overturned by the state supreme court...

Oh, and Jerry Brown is trying to overturn prop 13 again, but I doubt people are stupid enough to allow that.

Re:privacy?

[dgatwood]

The UK isn't a "lap dog".

Let me restate that another way, then. When it comes to surveillance, the UK took its cues from the 'States and one-upped them at every turn. Therefore, at least as far as this issue goes, the UK is worse, not better.

Re:privacy?

[similar_name]

I'm curious. Would you be okay with all of the data being made available on a website so that everyone can access it?

Re:privacy?

[CAIMLAS]

Yep.

Calling this not an invasion of privacy is like saying that installing a video camera into your bedroom window isn't an invasion of privacy or voyeurism because the camera was installed on public property and nobody's actually there - it's just a camera, right?

To use another analogy, taking a penny from the penny thing at the checkout isn't stealing. People place them there due to the denomination being too small to care about (at a personal level).

If you do that on a grand scale, it's considered theft (by individuals, not necessarily the law - eg. high frequency trading).

Re:privacy?

[CAIMLAS]

On the other hand unmarked police cars have been able to follow your car wherever it goes without a warrant, and that was not considered a privacy violation.

Where are you from? Because where I sit, that very much is a privacy violation. You can get an officer reprimanded for those tactics and, in the case of profiling and repeat violations, fired. I'm sorry, but it's considered harassment for this kind of thing to go on.

Furthermore: there isn't the budget for the police to monitor everyone by squad car. People simply wouldn't put up with that kind of expenditure. This global monitoring gets through the cracks due to the relatively insignificant cost (probably not much more than one or two cars for a small city).

And what if they use the database of automatically gathered plate numbers to build a profile of vehicles found near the scene of the crime? Is that profiling? What if someone is arrested with that automatically-gathered information? Sure, that's legitimate, but what if it's simply an 'overwhelming' body of circumstantial evidence? I work next to where my neighbor works, but he's a painter and I'm an electrician, but would they assume I'm also a painter because I park in the same parking lot as him? Probably, without any evidence to the contrary: I'd have to prove myself innocent.

Re:privacy?

[BradleyUffner]

I have to admit my first reaction to the thought was a negative one, but upon thinking on it some more I don't think I would have a problem with it.

This biggest issue I saw at first was that people would easily be able to tell when I wasn't home, making the house a burglary target, but they could do that now without the system just by watching the house. In fact, someone sitting in a car on my street could would be able to watch a whole bunch of houses at once for an empty one.

Re:privacy?

[GameboyRMH]

Been tried, doesn't work. I think Mythbusters even tested this exact idea in an episode. Good cameras have IR filters you know.

Re:privacy?

[GameboyRMH]

This mindset is the problem. You're allowing changes in technology to erode your privacy by making tracking easier and more common. If there were cop cars tailing every single vehicle and reporting their movements to a central database would you be OK with that? If not, why is it OK to do the same thing with cameras?

Re:privacy?

[GameboyRMH]

If it works, it's illegal, by definition. IR license plate frames don't work though. With a good IR filter it will just look like a set of dull white LEDs around the perfectly readable plate.

Re:privacy?

[infodragon]

If it works, it's illegal, by definition. IR license plate frames don't work though. With a good IR filter it will just look like a set of dull white LEDs around the perfectly readable plate.

I don't see anything *good* being installed by government contractors. It will take a few generations to get the filters as standard then it will take time for them to replace existing camera emplacements. Hopefully there will be enough outcry over such Orwellian surveillance that by the time the cameras would be properly curtailed.

I can also see the cameras used to issue speeding tickets. You are at point A at time X, then point B at time Y. Distance traveled over time traveled exceeds speed limit, citation issued.

In a semi-perfect world I would be happy to have these cameras up and running if the data was purged no more than once a week, excepting a court order.

Re:privacy?

[BradleyUffner]

This mindset is the problem. You're allowing changes in technology to erode your privacy by making tracking easier and more common. If there were cop cars tailing every single vehicle and reporting their movements to a central database would you be OK with that? If not, why is it OK to do the same thing with cameras?

I would be perfectly fine with it from a privacy perspective. I would not be fine with it from a cost perspective. The cameras do the same thing without the cost.

really?

[PopeRatzo]

Do you really have an expectation of privacy over the license plate hanging on your car bumper?

Aren't license plates like the opposite of private?

Re:really?

[pegasustonans]

Do you really have an expectation of privacy over the license plate hanging on your car bumper?

Aren't license plates like the opposite of private?

How about very specific knowledge of where you're going and when? Because, that's what we're really talking about here.

Re:really?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's quite different when the government is using technology to automatically record everything. Just like someone seeing you walking down the sidewalk is different than you being recorded by cameras everywhere you go.

Private, public, it really doesn't matter. The citizens (in theory, at least) control the government, and they should be able to stop them from trying this nonsense.

Re:really?

[timeOday]

citizens (in theory, at least) control the government, and they should be able to stop them from trying this nonsense.

Where I live we had a referendum against red light cameras. It passed, and now the cameras are gone. Surely the same could be done with plate tracking.

Re:really?

[BradleyUffner]

Do you really have an expectation of privacy over the license plate hanging on your car bumper?

Aren't license plates like the opposite of private?

How about very specific knowledge of where you're going and when? Because, that's what we're really talking about here.

No, it's general knowledge about what public street you were on at the time of the photo. It doesn't tell them anything about a specific place you are going. At best (worst?) they might see a still photo of you turning in to a parking spot or parked along a road.

Re:really?

[TubeSteak]

In the past, limited law enforcement resources prevented the cops from taking pictures of everyone and everything at every moment of the day.
Society's basic expectations of privacy and the laws that followed, are based upon this assumption that you could not be tracked at every second.

Not "would not be track," but "could not be tracked."
As a result, the police are operating in a grey zone.
What they're doing may be legal, but only because the law did not anticipate this.

Re:really?

[ThePeices]

The citizens (in theory, at least) control the government, and they should be able to stop them from trying this nonsense.

Key word here; 'theory'.

In theory that's how a democratic government works....In practice....lol, as if. Wouldn't we be so lucky!

Re:really?

[Sperbels]

Private, public, it really doesn't matter. The citizens (in theory, at least) control the government, and they should be able to stop them from trying this nonsense.

I think we're way beyond that at this point. We don't control the government anymore...if we ever did.

Re:really?

[Curunir_wolf]

Do you really have an expectation of privacy over the license plate hanging on your car bumper?

Aren't license plates like the opposite of private?

License plate, sure. Records associated with your license plate, not so much. Everywhere you've been that a scanner, a camera, your toll road pass, all connected together with your address, your IRS records, your medical information, the geolocation information from your cell phone, your ISP's address assignment information along with your search history and your emails ...

Total Information Awareness in progress. Pre-Crime Division authorization soon to follow.

Re:really?

[BradleyUffner]

At best (worst?) they might see a still photo of you turning in to a parking spot or parked along a road.

Or parked next to a union leader, or parked next to a politician (when the other guys are in power) or parked next to the anonymous whistleblower providing you information on corruption for your news article.

They can already do that without the cameras.

Re:really?

[TheGratefulNet]

thank you for stating it so that even idiots can understand.

the license plate is NOT just a bunch of numbers. it represents the state's NEW ability to store your whereabouts for years and years.

this power would never have been given to the state by our founding fathers. do you think they would have encouraged this?

that's my litmus test. would they have accepted the set of powers that the state has recently been grabbing, left and right?

your plate is not just a bunch of numbers and the fact that some random person can see it for an instant is NOT the same as the gov keeping tabs on you, mechanically, ad infinitum.

is this really the direction you want a ruling government to go in? now, lets imagine that this info is stored for the next few years and maybe a long time from now, some truly evil guy gets into office. he inherits this WEALTH of info about people he can now attack or threaten.

sorry, but this is too much power for our government to have over us. it can ONLY be abused. it is not something they should have. and we are right to be outraged that they continue along these lines.

Re:really?

[PopeRatzo]

Records associated with your license plate, not so much.

You may be surprised to find out that your government already has the "records associated with your license plate".

And so do you. It's public record.

Re:really?

[PopeRatzo]

I think we're way beyond that at this point. We don't control the government anymore...if we ever did.

There's a post just a couple above yours from a guy who's municipality had a referendum to get rid of some of this surveillance stuff and it passed and the cameras are gone.

Yes, you control your government if you're willing to exercise that control. You can even have a significant impact on the political system, simply by showing up at a local party committee meeting and speaking up. It takes time and will, which most people don't have.

And it means ignoring advertising and all political media for a while, and being very mindful of what corporations you give your money to, which is harder work than most people are willing to do.

Re:really?

[Fnord666]

You may be surprised to find out that your government already has the "records associated with your license plate".

And so do you. It's public record.

I'm not sure what state or country you live in, so maybe this is a local phenomena. In the state I live in the registration information associated with a license plate is not a matter of public record. You need a valid court order relating to a civil or criminal case before the department of motor vehicles will officially provide you with that information.

Re:really?

[pentalive]

It's not the innocent places you go in your day to day travels. It is the places the over imaginative detective thinks you are going. You know how sometimes people think they see Jesus in a slice of toast? Well your travels taken in total may just look like crime to that faceless public servant.

Re:really?

[adolf]

Can I sit at the side of a public road and write down the license plate numbers of every car that goes past? Of course.

Can I sit at the side of a public and type the license plate numbers of every car that goes past into a database? Of course -- why wouldn't I be able to do so?

Can I use a computer vision to do the same thing? Doubtless so -- I'm a free person, doing free things in a public space.

Why should it be different for someone under the employ of the State?

Re:really?

[xenobyte]

How about very specific knowledge of where you're going and when? Because, that's what we're really talking about here.

Since when does a license plate advertise exactly who's inside the car?

It's just like the "1 IP != 1 person" issue - An IP doesn't say anything about who exactly used that IP, and while you can fairly easily find our who owns the connection using the IP, you cannot with any certainty find out which person used it for specific connections in the past.

Similar with license plates - you can find out who owns the car but not who's driving it. It could be the owner, someone who's borrowed the car, a car thief or maybe it's a fake plate like often used in connection with gasoline theft.

Re:really?

[operagost]

Imagine a law that we had to wear license plates around our necks. Would that now mean that we have no expectation of privacy wherever we walked? If you claim that such a law would not be allowed, why?

The issue is not the privacy of the plate, which is state property anyway. The issue is the privacy of the person(s) inside.

Re:really?

[operagost]

Because they're in the employ of the state.

Re:really?

[PopeRatzo]

Imagine a law that we had to wear license plates around our necks.

Why?

But you don't have to imagine a law that requires you to wear a license plate on your car's bumper, because it's been the law for more than half a century.

And police (and people) have been allowed to look at your license plate for all of that time. And, since your license plate is registered to only your specific car, then yes, that covers the car itself. And since it's also registered to the person who owns the car, and is assumed to be driving the car, then it covers the person inside the car.

In 1950, the police had the power to look at your license plate, to put out an APB on that license plate, in order to find the owner of the car. Except for it being a lot easier now, it's no different.

As I've said, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose the surveillance regime without crying about keeping "the government out of my license plate".

Re:really?

[viperidaenz]

or your travels might be a good alibi for a crime. Either way though, its only circumstantial unless captured images can clearly identify the driver of the car.
It's like if I speed past a speed camera, the owner of the car gets a fine. They get no points on their license though, that only happens when caught by a police officer who can prove you were in the drivers seat. Providing sufficient information to show you were not the driver of the car at the time can get you off the fine. Driving a car on a public road is not a right, it's a privilege.

Re:really?

[GameboyRMH]

Unfortunately they're not in a gray zone, they're in a white zone. It's perfectly within the letter of the law if completely against the spirit of the law (which basically counts for dick until the letter of the law is updated to spell it out more precisely).

Re:really?

[GameboyRMH]

My government knows what my plate is and it's association with my name and the vehicle it's on. Apart from that, as far as they know I've never driven a vehicle apart from when I got pulled over for speeding a couple of years ago (this came up recently when I needed to provide proof of driving experience). If they had license plate readers they'd have a detailed record of everywhere I've driven.

Re:really?

[GameboyRMH]

You're basically describing automatic facial recognition, coming soon to public places near you.

Re:really?

[servant]

The public can control it.

Vote out politicians that allow it at all levels. Tell them what you are going to do and make it public. Then do it. But it has to be important to enough voters in their constituency to make it so.

Will the public do it? ... I am cynical enough to believe not, but I hold out hope none the less.

Re:Welcome to the Future

[Dunbal]

I see it differently. I welcome such "progress" because it can only have one eventual outcome - the destruction of the current order. So by all means, push a little harder. Just a little more...

Re:Easy Solution

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Get license plate spray. It works.

Only in the case of the now out-dated cameras that use a flash.
The kind of ANPR systems that have become ubiquitous in recent years don't use a flash.

However, I've been thinking that a clear license plate cover that embedded infra-red LEDs in strategic locations would be useful in obscuring the number to cameras - many (most?) of which are sensitive to IR in order to improve capture quality in low-light conditions - without being obvious to the naked eye.

Re:Technology = Scary

[cheekyjohnson]

What's the difference between hiring enough people to write down the license plates as people drive by?

One is not viable, and the other is. Of course, if you were somehow able to hire enough people to do the job, I'd say that would be an invasion of privacy, too.

But again, hiring the required amount of people to perform such a task is nearly impossible. People don't catch everything or have perfect memories, either.

What they don't know, Google does

[Tony Isaac]

Every Android device is constantly tracked by Google. You can see this on Google Maps...check out the accuracy and detail of the traffic overlay. Apple does the same thing with iPhones. Both companies comply willingly with law enforcement requests for tracking data. So not only can they read your plate, but they can tell who is in the car with you, where you go, and where you stay.

Is all this information good, or bad? YES! This information can be used to bring about justice, or it can be grossly abused.

Re:What they don't know, Google does

[7-Vodka]

Hey you know what's good for justice? If we embed video cameras in your eyes and microphones in your ears and record everything on the CLOUD.

That way, if you ever break any laws, no matter how unjust they may be, we can make sure you are justly punished.

Of course why would you have anything to fear if you're innocent? Are you hiding something? Think of the CHILDREN. We have to DO SOMETHING about all this crime.

Re:What they don't know, Google does

[swillden]

Google doesn't comply with law enforcement requests. They do comply with court orders (they have no choice, really), but that's much less prone to abuse.

Re:What they don't know, Google does

[sootman]

> Every Android device is constantly tracked by
> Google. You can see this on Google Maps...check
> out the accuracy and detail of the traffic overlay.

Wow. I always thought they got that info from the DOT or something, who gets it from toll transponders. Then I did a search, and what do you know? You're right. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/bright-side-of-sitting-in-traffic.html

Fun fact: "Some phones, such as the T-Mobile myTouch 3G and the Palm Pre, come with Google Maps and traffic crowdsourcing pre-installed (the iPhone Maps application, however, does not support traffic crowdsourcing)."

See also their statement here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_maps_gets_smarter_crowdsources_traffic_data.php

Re:Easy Solution

[olsmeister]

Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it. I'm sure eventually they'll come out with cameras that aren't fooled. And my first thought at that was, good, make the 'em spend money buying new equipment. Then I realized whose money it is they will be spending.

Poisoning the database

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we make a bunch of signs that are pictures of different license plates, and place them randomly about town? Swap them out every few days, and change the plates, and soon the cops DB will be full of bad data.

Or pull a Little Bobby Tables, and have an image of a plate that ends in an SQL injection

Re:Poisoning the database

[Robert Zenz]

I surely hope that the license plate "'; DROP TABLE tracking_data; --" will not pass/being recognized as valid in the system...

Re:Get a lenticular license plate cover

[ThePeices]

Lol, you should check out this TV series called Mythbusters. They would laugh at your foolish lies. And then prove you utterly wrong.

Re:Tip tc ch

[bev_tech_rob]

English, dude.....English...

You are being watched

[Anonymous Coward]

We needs amendments to the US constitution to protect us from digital-based spying. The founders intended for the constitution to be amended often so that it could evolve and grow better. The digital awakening means that it needs to evolve and fast. There's no reason that law-abiding citizens should be monitored constantly. We are moving to a world were government knows everything about what you do. Only the historically naive would claim that the United States is immune to future political situations where that information, even if totally legal, could be used to blackmail, marginalize, jail, or even kill you. Unfortunately there is nothing to prevent such databases from being created. That is why we must be given new rights to protect us from them.

Re:You are being watched

[speedlaw]

Wait, let me get my phone out, and post this to facebook !

Re:Welcome to the Future

[donaggie03]

I think things are going to have to get a LOT worse (not jsut "a little more..." for most Americans before they get off the couch and cause the destruction of the current order. Unfortunately I don't think that there's enough care out there for any meaningful push back towards a decent state. This means we're going to be stuck on this slow downward spiral for a while now. The worst part is that by the time most Americans wake up, first they will be called hippies and minimized in the media, and then the technology used by the police state will be too advanced for any meaningful change to occur. We will simply all end up being labelled as terrorists or have criminal records for showing up at an anti-whatever rally.

Re:Technology = Scary

[ThePeices]

What's the difference between hiring enough people to write down the license plates as people drive by?
This should be the same question in almost all technology privacy questions. With enough people, could you perform the same level of tracking/facial recognition/technology boogeyman?

There is no difference in the end, the same privacy issues would arise, I dont see your point. Human or computer, it is still just as creepy and concerning.

But computers/cameras can do it way better, faster, more accurately, cheaper, require less maintenance, are smaller, less obvious, require less effort to create the system, can provide tracking data in real-time, analyse and store tracking data forever.....dude, you got all day? I could go on and on and on...

Rise of the License Plate Reader.

[VortexCortex]

Today's reading club will be focusing on a little gem in the same vein as the ever popular 50 Shades of Grease:
IB6 UB9

Mmmm, that it's made by a convict is all the more racy!

Re:Rise of the License Plate Reader.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Redmond police seem to always be tracking my license plate number - B16B00B5

Can't have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're gonna bitch about not being able to take pictures in public places, we can't bitch about the gov't taking pictures in public places.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[cheekyjohnson]

A few people taking pictures here and there is an order of magnitude different than a single organization recording everything nearly everywhere. And since citizens can (theoretically) control the government, we definitely can stop nonsense like this, and still be allowed to take pictures in public ourselves.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[bpeikes]

So very true. Wish I could mod this comment up.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[SomewhatRandom]

Normally, I weigh in on the side of individual privacy... but

I consider this information to be relatively public by nature and there are considerable benefits to having this type of system in place.

Ex:
Resolving amber alerts faster, Locating stolen vehicles faster, Improved efficiency of local governments, etc...

Balancing the need for individual privacy/rights with protecting the individual rights of other citizens, while operating within a limited budget is a tricky thing. The need to avoid the "slippery slope" is great, and the loss of individual privacy should always be considered a great cost, but a cost-benefit analysis should be done. The following should be kept in mind though:

1.) Individual privacy is not priceless.
  (How much Individual Privacy have some people freely given up just to use facebook?)
2.) How does the cost of hiding information like X impact the individual rights of others?

City budget cuts are pretty common these days and often translate to fewer police. I would argue that a system like this could improve efficiency and help lessen the impact of cuts like these.

I believe the information should be purged when it is older than 2 months in order to help limit the scope of the system to a near-time discovery tool as oppose to a long-term tracking mechanism.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[cheekyjohnson]

I consider this information to be relatively public by nature

"Public" is not the same as "expected to be seen by surveillance devices everywhere."

Resolving amber alerts faster, Locating stolen vehicles faster, Improved efficiency of local governments, etc...

Yes, yes, and the TSA will stop the big, evil terrorists. I don't care for the idea of letting the government install surveillance devices everywhere just because some people are hellbent on stopping a few people they deem criminals at any cost.

Balancing the need for individual privacy/rights with protecting the individual rights of other citizens, while operating within a limited budget is a tricky thing.

It's really not. Just don't install these.

The need to avoid the "slippery slope" is great, and the loss of individual privacy should always be considered a great cost, but a cost-benefit analysis should be done.

I've already done that. Given the past actions of this government and the actions of governments all throughout history, I don't trust them with such powers.

I believe the information should be purged when it is older than 2 months in order to help limit the scope of the system to a near-time discovery tool as oppose to a long-term tracking mechanism.

I don't trust them to do that, either. I do not want this system in place. I'm tired of them using 1984 as a manual. They'll do absolutely anything if they think it will make people slightly more 'secure'.

Re:Oh, Slashdot

[cheekyjohnson]

I feel like if the anarcho-libertarians around here go their way, civilians would all have modern technology while cops are forced to run around in loincloths with sharpened sticks.

No, they just wouldn't be allowed to monitor absolutely everything and everyone just because they want to catch a few people they deem criminals. How awful that is.

Re:Oh, Slashdot

[mooingyak]

It's not a matter of what technology the cops are allowed to use, it's a matter of how they use it.

Cops, with a warrant, are allowed to do all sorts of stuff. They can listen to your phone calls or search your house. As long as there's some level of checks and balances on it, I can accept that. I have this crazy idea here -- hear me out -- that before the police put together a database of everywhere my car has been pretty much forever, they should need a warrant for that too. And it'd be kind of nice if they had to get rid of that data after a certain point if it didn't enable them to build a case.

Er, didn't we just cover this on /. ?

[drkim]

Er, didn't we just cover this on /. ?

Minneapolis Police Catalog License Plates and Location Data
http://yro.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=12/08/11/0024218

Summary of Existential Incarceration

[Penurious Penguin]

Or perhaps: A new ontology, through the lens of biometrics | or; you're in trouble now, whether you are or not.

In the recent Slashdot post regarding TrapWire, an anonymous reader had posted a superb video which was removed. An identical version can be seen HERE, which I think beautifully summarizes the current and coming state of surveillance we face.

If the mod-trolls don't send me under, my own interpretation -- inspired by and written immediately after watching the video -- can be read here:
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/biometrics-prison-within-tripwires.html
And on the subject of plate-readers and helicopters, here:
http://eccentricintelligenceagency.info/archives/7340
Maybe instead of bashing me with mod-points, the more formidable cudgel of critical-thinking could be used. Otherwise, I'll continue to speak through the rubble. Things are getting so stupid, that soon neither the stupid nor the intelligent will have any power of denial.

Re:Oh, Slashdot

[TheGratefulNet]

how's that boot taste? lick it more. mmm, that's good!

you disgust me. I do believe you are a troll since its really hard to believe that you take your own shit seriously.

Really? - You really don't get it.

[formfeed]

No, it's general knowledge about what public street you were on at the time of the photo. It doesn't tell them anything about a specific place you are going. At best (worst?) they might see a still photo of you turning in to a parking spot or parked along a road.

Sorry. But you don't see the whole picture. License plate readers are not just single photos. It is about movement of individuals And not just one suspect, but everyone. It is automated and turns the where-abouts of individuals into a searchable database. Combined with security cameras, face recognition, and cell phone records they can give you a very accurate description of someone's movements.

So what? NY (eh, Bloomberg) is proud, that with their new technology (provided by Microsoft) they can automatically search for certain suspects. Looking for someone in a blue jacket? They can now automatically pull up surveillance of anyone in a blue jacket. And they keep video records for the last 30 days (Other records for years). They can probably match that to what car that person drove, what store he/she entered (nice pictures there), or whether she/he used the subway. They are working on software to automatically detect suspicious activity.

Once you have all this data, it would be very easy for some other unnamed agency to use it to match movement data of different individuals and come up with a list of possible contacts.

Now imagine that technology in the hand of a repressive police state. The White Rose (students who distributed leaflets against Hitler) lasted about 9 months before they were beheaded. A janitor caught them distributing leaflets. With Bloomberg/Microsoft's new Information Awareness they would last a couple hours.

Waste of money

[characterZer0]

As a resident of NYS, the highest taxed state in the country, the expense of this is far more upsetting to me than the privacy implications.

I see a lot of negative posts on this

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Hello, I see a *lot* of negative privacy concerns on this post, but I see it differently. I've felt for over a decade the police should have license plate scanners. Then when they tie it into a database of stolen cars, or cars used in recent untried crimes, it would come up as a positive, and the cop could pull the car over.

Isn't there any love for police here being able to do their job more effectively? Every civilized nation needs a police force. So even if you don't like the current government, a new government still would need police. We should therefore help our police to be empowered to solve the crimes they're commonly tackling.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[TubeSteak]

Isn't there any love for police here being able to do their job more effectively?

The police should have just enough resources to do their job.
So to find stolen cars or cars used in recent crimes, do you need a license plate database stretching back 1 week? 6 months? 2 years? 10 years?

The problem isn't the police doing their job more effectively, it's the lack of limits on the information they are gathering to do their job.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[smellotron]

I've felt for over a decade the police should have license plate scanners. Then when they tie it into a database of stolen cars, or cars used in recent untried crimes, it would come up as a positive, and the cop could pull the car over.

I don't see a problem with that, either. Real-time scanning and correlation automates the lookups they are already doing. The problem is when the cops build up a database of all license plates instead of just "hot" vehicles. Persistent storage enables chilling new "research" which tempts abuse while offering very little marginal benefit.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[PieceOfShitAndroid]

I don't trust the police, so no, there is no love.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Then when they tie it into a database of stolen cars ...

We've had red-light cameras for many years. For obvious reasons, stolen vehicles have been caught by red-light cameras. The police didn't care, they just issued a fine (to the hapless owner). Recently, some bad PR changed their mind.

It's very telling that police PR isn't extolling the power of LPRs to catch criminals in the act. One wonders who the police want to follow if they're not thinking about criminals.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[mjwx]

Isn't there any love for police here being able to do their job more effectively?

No there isn't and there is a very simple reason for this.

People who regularly break traffic laws will have to stop complaining about the police and start taking responsibility for breaking the traffic laws. This is unconscionable to the speeder, tailgater, weaver and lane hog. Their inability to drive within the rules is so clearly not their fault, it must be "revenue raising" or some such and they should for no reason drive within the speed limit, at a safe distance nor exercise proper lane discipline. Worse yet, it would mean they would have to admit their ability to drive is somewhat less than perfect, again this is so wrong it cannot even be considered.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[Hatta]

Isn't there any love for police here being able to do their job more effectively?

As long as our police think that arresting protesters is a bigger priority than arresting bankers, no not at all. The police are not on our side.

Every civilized nation needs a police force.

Show me a civilized nation, I'd like to move there.

So even if you don't like the current government, a new government still would need police.

How are we going to get a new government with the police breaking up demonstrations? Harassing protestors, etc.

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[fair_n_hite_451]

You've obviously never had your license plate swapped by thieves with a stolen car similar to yours. Contrary to popular belief, all criminals aren't stupid. 1 - steal car 2 - drive directly to mass transit parking lot in middle of the work day 3 - cruise around to find similar looking vehicle 4 - swap license plates. I have no idea how long I drove around with "stolen car" plates on my vehicle, but I can just imagine what would have happened had I been pulled over because I was flagged by some license plate reader. Wouldn't that be fun to have the cops storming my house because my car was parked in my driveway....

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[JWallyR]

Isn't there any love for police here being able to do their job more effectively?

No there isn't and there is a very simple reason for this.

People who regularly break traffic laws will have to stop complaining about the police and start taking responsibility for breaking the traffic laws. This is unconscionable to the speeder, tailgater, weaver and lane hog. Their inability to drive within the rules is so clearly not their fault, it must be "revenue raising" or some such and they should for no reason drive within the speed limit, at a safe distance nor exercise proper lane discipline. Worse yet, it would mean they would have to admit their ability to drive is somewhat less than perfect, again this is so wrong it cannot even be considered.

1) Plenty of evidence is available that shows that traffic laws are set for many reasons, with safety being merely the excuse for their existence. See the numerous complaints of yellow lights being shortened to generate revenue from redlight-cams, unreasonably slow speed limits on small towns whose main street IS the highway between 2 major cities, etc.

2) Even if we assume that MOST speed limits are not being set for revenue-generating purposes, they are clearly in many cases set at arbitrarily low numbers, with little regard being paid for actual safety. In fact, studies show that statistically, most drivers typically ignore the speed limit in the first place and simply drive at a speed that is dependent on the circumstances and visibility, etc. of the road in question, modifying their behavior at most only slightly in order to adhere to the posted speed limit. This tends to suggest that, in fact, most drivers drive with some measure of reasonable consideration for the fact that they oh, I don't know, what to get where they're going alive? Arbitrarily low speed limits do not, then, increase safety; they simply allow for more tickets and increase general frustration among drivers.

3) While I agree 110% with the concern about tailgating, lane hogging, weaving and etc., to lump speeding, which does not inherently imply dangerous or discourteous behavior, in with all these other offenses which necessarily contain one or both, is at best thoughtless on your part, and undermines your argument (which is itself stupid, but breaking down the reasons that the powers of the police need to be brought back into some semblance of sanity would require more effort than i care to put into this post).

Re:I see a lot of negative posts on this

[mjwx]

See the numerous complaints of yellow lights

See the drivers not being prepared to stop at a traffic light.

Sorry, these complaints are ignored because they are pretty much proof of the drivers inability to control their vehicle.

Defensive driving is about anticipating changes in traffic, this means anticipating the light change and adjusting your speed or vehicle control accordingly. Any semi-comptent judge will tear you a new one after using that excuse.

Even if we assume that MOST speed limits are not being set for revenue-generating purposes, they are clearly in many cases set at arbitrarily low numbers,

Wrong

They have a great deal of research behind them (PDF warning)

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGUQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fviolence_injury_prevention%2Fpublications%2Froad_traffic%2Fworld_report%2Fspeed_en.pdf&ei=5cswUIyPN-SwiQfW4oH4Ag&usg=AFQjCNH2KK6RUWvl9iFwm61v6sm5DtVw2Q&cad=rja If you think they are arbitrary then you have no idea what you are talking about http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/tra/rpt/2003-R-0673.htm

to lump speeding, which does not inherently imply dangerous or discourteous behavior,

Wrong again.

Speeding is inherently dangerous behaviour.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/index.html

In Australia speeding has overtaken drugs and alcohol (combined) to become the number 1 cause of road fatalities. It's a similar situation in the US where speeding accounts for 1/3 of traffic accidents.

You need to go have a long hard look at what you've said, it's so wrong it's not funny. You have provided no links and only posted hearsay with no factual value what so ever. Just because you want to believe it does not make it true. Sunshine, you need to hand in your license as all this woefully inaccurate post has done is show you have no idea what you're on about or how to be safe in a car (especially if you think speeding is not dangerous behaviour).

ICE?

[guttentag]

From TFA:

As a result of this rapid expansion of private monitoring, the company recently won a $25,000 contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provide a database that would help locate "fugitive aliens."

I don't get it. What does an agency whose primary mandate is to shut down Web sites and seize domain names need LPR data for? Are people driving server farms around in trucks?

Re:ICE?

[TheSpoom]

Whether the parent post is serious or sarcasm, it's hilarious either way.

Maybe it is time to create the Slashdot Party??

[stox]

That may not be as crazy at it sounds.

Re:Maybe it is time to create the Slashdot Party??

[backwardsposter]

A party that can't agree on anything except what happens in Soviet Russia...

I dunno, at least we'd all get our chance to say something, since we'd constantly dupe the same issues over and over.
"I think we should repeal the license plate tracking!"
"We just did that!"
"Well okay, as long as we agree....good week guys!"

Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[Jeremi]

I see two common responses to this:

1) This technology will lead to a loss of privacy and abuses by police, therefore it should be stopped

or

2) This technology will enable police to find and catch criminals more quickly and effectively, therefore it should be allowed.

The truth is, both reactions are correct -- but the issue is typically presented as a tradeoff: we can have our privacy OR better law enforcement, but not both.

But what fun is that? I want both. And since we are all clever Bagginses here on Slashdot, perhaps someone can think of an LPR system that would allow police to track down criminals quickly, and yet still by highly resistant to privacy loss or abuse. I recognize that such a design is non-trivial, but in a world where people come up with clever systems such as BitCoin, I don't think it's necessarily impossible either. It just takes some serious thought, and getting past the "ooh, new technology is scary" stage.

Re:Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[cheekyjohnson]

perhaps someone can think of an LPR system that would allow police to track down criminals quickly, and yet still by highly resistant to privacy loss or abuse.

And who would control this system? Who would fund all this? The government is what comes to mind. I hardly trust them with anything as it is...

It just takes some serious thought, and getting past the "ooh, new technology is scary" stage.

The problem isn't that the new technology is scary; the problem is how it's being used.

They use the same justifications for organizations like the TSA. "Some people are criminals, so everyone must accept a loss of freedom in exchange for what is quite possibly just security theater." They seem to be quite adept at punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Re:Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[splutty]

No.

Number 1 is correct, in the sense that it allows them to track anyone, anywhere.

Number 2 is incorrect, since storing license plates does not in any way, shape or form increase the chance of catching someone.

The only thing needed for number 2 to function, is to have a license plate read read the license plate (it's what they do right), and then NOT STORE ANYTHING, but do an immediate query to a database of license plates that are known to be wrong (stolen, no insurance, etc).

This does NOT require them to store all license plates at all times, it actually doesn't require them to store any scanned license plates at all.

It's really very simple.

Re:Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[Dcnjoe60]

The difference between license plate scanning and the TSA is that for license plates, your car is on a public road and your plate is publicly visible. For the TSA, they are scanning for what is not publicly visible. Things visible to the public do not invade privacy. Things that are normally not visible and to which people expect some sort of privacy, do invade privacy when scanned without cause.

BTW, that is why when a hotel clerk or law enforcement ask to see your drivers license, you have to remove it from your wallet and hand it to them. Your drivers license is considered private. Your removing it from your wallet and handing it to them means that you voluntarily gave it to them. Now, you don't have to do that. That is your right. But then you may have consequences -- not getting a hotel room in the first case and going to jail in the second.

Re:Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[TheSpoom]

It's quite simple; license plates at which a warrant has not been issued should not be tracked. LPRs should ignore them.

Good luck getting that to happen. The primary benefit of LPRs to law enforcement is making criminals out of previously unsuspected people in order to raise revenue.

Re:Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[cheekyjohnson]

The difference between license plate scanning and the TSA is that for license plates, your car is on a public road and your plate is publicly visible.

I never said there were not differences. I only said that they're using the same justification: "To stop the big, evil criminals." I don't care for giving the government ridiculous powers simply because there are a few criminals here and there.

Things visible to the public do not invade privacy.

Private or not, that does not matter to me. It's our tax dollars, and I certainly don't feel comfortable having a single powerful organization try to record everything and everyone. Actually, when I walk out side, I, at most, expect people to see me. I don't expect to be recorded by the government wherever I go.

BTW, that is why when a hotel clerk or law enforcement ask to see your drivers license, you have to remove it from your wallet and hand it to them. Your drivers license is considered private. Your removing it from your wallet and handing it to them means that you voluntarily gave it to them.

What does that have to do with our own government installing surveillance devices everywhere? A hotel is far less powerful than the government, and they certainly don't have surveillance devices everywhere.

The bottom line is that it's our own government doing this. Whether license plates are public or private does not matter at all. If we do something about it, they can be stopped.

Re:Is there a path to the best of both worlds?

[Jeremi]

Number 2 is incorrect, since storing license plates does not in any way, shape or form increase the chance of catching someone.

I think you're wrong about this. Say the police discover a dead body on Tuesday, and they determine that the dead body was dumped there around 2PM on Sunday. Being able to go back and find out what cars were in the area around 2PM Sunday would certainly be a useful source of leads.

The fact that the capability seems likely to invite abuse doesn't negate the fact that it would also be genuinely be useful in some cases.

can we use privacy screens to hide plates?

[mrterrysilver]

i was just thinking, would privacy screens (meant for laptops) work on your license plate?

directly behind (police for example) you can see it fine, but directly overhead or from a side angle (cameras) are obscured.

thoughts?

Re:can we use privacy screens to hide plates?

[Dcnjoe60]

i was just thinking, would privacy screens (meant for laptops) work on your license plate?

directly behind (police for example) you can see it fine, but directly overhead or from a side angle (cameras) are obscured.

thoughts?

Probably not and if it did, it is against the law in most places to obscure your license plate.

Driving is a privilege not a right

[bussdriver]

They can require a great many things of you for being allowed to drive on the public road system. Car insurance for example; you don't have to buy it but then you do not have to drive.

You could be required to have unique IDs on your car for easy identification (aka license plates) and you have no recourse unless you get a huge number of voters together to change that requirement.

If you do not want to be tracked, you will have to use another means of transportation - you have the right to primitive mobility.

Re:Driving is a privilege not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is not your mom. The government is simply a collection of falliable people just like me. Who gave them the right to say what is a right and what isn't?

Trotting out this nonsense that driving is a "privilege" when it's one that nearly everyone has and is just about required to be a functional adult in many places is simply stupid.

Re:Driving is a privilege not a right

[misexistentialist]

you have the right to primitive mobility

That's a meaningless standard. Can I ride a donkey around town without police harassment? Or do you mean that only jetpacks need plates since cars are so primitive? Though even when cars where state-of-the-art regulations were much laxer... In fact registration and insurance of motor vehicles is entirely unnecessary, it just seems necessary because they tell you it is.

Re:Driving is a privilege not a right

[bussdriver]

You all give them the power, duh! You got "Insightful" for that? Insightful to a moron maybe.

Things required to be a functional human anywhere:
water. food. proper temp (clothes/shelter.) sanitation. mobility..... reading?...education...?

So I suppose you normally spend your time fighting for those important rights for everybody??
Just because "nearly everyone" has something does not make it a right.

When I say right in this context I mean the universal unalienable kind of right... kind of like a RITE in that it is not merely a legal construct produced by some political system. If you find laws inhibiting your "rite of driving" then you are also in a similar context. In which case I disagree that driving rises to that level and is therefore an earned privilege.

It also fits privilege since you must pass a test to earn it; pay for it, have a car, pay for insurance.

Gee

[Osgeld]

Your navigating thousands of pounds of metal at high speed with a UUID at least on one end of it, if not two

who would want to keep an eye on that? Fuck I get annoyed by the same GFD hillbilly who is doing 100+ in a 1992 chevy truck with 6 inch pipes sticking out of the back of the cab 2 foot above the roofline every single day. I know their vehicle, shit I even know their license plate, whats the difference if I report it or a camera does?

Yea I am being tracked as well, but theres this thing called an if statement ... if (driver == asshole) flag; else break

Re:Gee

[Dcnjoe60]

Ironically, it was a Prius that blew past me at about 80mph this morning. And here I thought the whole point of buying a hybrid car was to safe fuel. Go figure!

overblown

[slashmydots]

My license plate is out there for the world to see. So what? So is my face and my fingerprints. Big freaking deal. People could track people centuries ago, they're just faster now.

Re:overblown

[Anonymous Coward]

Very little good can come from the government being able to track everyone all the time. Tracking every movement of someone is stalking - which is illegal for very good reasons. We'll end in a horrible dystopia and people like you are to blame.

Re:overblown

[misexistentialist]

OK post your name, plate number, photo, and a scan of your fingerprints. Or are you just bullshitting us?

Re:Get a lenticular license plate cover

[DigiShaman]

Wouldn't have matter if it did work. Texas law prohibits any and all methods of obstructing license plates (that would otherwise obstruct automated OCR based technology).

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/SB00369F.pdf

I wouldn't be surprised if the next version of plates have RFID tags built into them. It would certainly make their job easier and the technology would be cheaper than it is with complicated and software. It would also cost the tax payer less money in equipment costs. Think of it as rape with lube thrown in to make the experience better. And remember to say "Thank You".

You're welcome citizen.

Tinfoil hat alert.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only those of us who decide to NOT own/carry a cell phone for geolocation privacy issues are allowed to bitch about this.

Re:Oh, Slashdot

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

I feel like if the anarcho-libertarians around here go their way, civilians would all have modern technology while cops are forced to run around in loincloths with sharpened sticks.

So recording personal information in a database by a private corporation (run by civilians), would be allowed to happen in your country? On public land?
So then the premise that civilians are held to a less account is clearly false then, yes?

"One would think that the ostensibly geeky audience of this site would understand that technology advances, and when it does, it helps everyone."

Technology can be used for good or bad purposes. References: The entirety of human history

Not just license readers

[andrew3]

I had a company spokeperson at my university lecturing about the benefits of Bluetooth tracking. They stated it was used for improving traffic, but at what cost?

Many countries also have electronic tolling booths that require RFID devices in cars (it's called eToll/GoVia in Australia). So it's not only license plate readers that people have to watch out for.

Re:Welcome to the Future

[Darinbob]

And it will likely be replaced with a worse order.

FUHHHHRRRRRREEEEDDOOOOOMM!!!

[Alex Belits]

Because every American citizen has a Gawd-given right to run over pedestrians anonymously. Unless those pedestrians are a group of iPhone-carrying hipsters.

Re:Welcome to the Future

[yangli520]

now,I know something!

Re:Welcome to the Future

[gl4ss]

when everyone is suspicious, nobody is.
once the no-fly list includes everyone mexicos airports will be booming with business.

and once majority of the people end up being unable to vote they'll rally for a change the old fashioned way.

Re:Tip tc ch

[pentalive]

Your obviously brilliant point is lost on the rest of us who don't read your language. What did you say?

If you car is stolen

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that means that if you have your car stolen, you would just be able to go to the police and they would tell you exactly where it is.

Re:If you car is stolen

[gatkinso]

Probably a vagrant slept in the car. Or maybe just used it as a toilet and moved on.

Yes, but...

[bradley13]

Sure, one wants the police to have good tools. The thing is, these tools should only be used in genuine criminal cases.

How about this:

- The license plate scanners are great, they run all the time, scanning every plate they see.

- The data on the plate (this car was here at this time) only if the plate is in a list of accepted cases. Otherwise the data is immediately discarded

- A plate can only be placed in the list if the car has been reported as stolen, or if a judge has issued a warrant.

- Plates may only remain in the list for a limited time, for example, as specified in the warrant.

- If data collected on a plate is not needed (e.g., no criminal complaint results from a warrant) the data is deleted.

This way, the police have a good tool to use, and the privacy rights of innocent citizens are not infringed.

Difiicult dilemma, restricting tech

[fa2k]

In principle, the govt should have the right to take pictures anywhere in public. The counter-argument is that *they* are forcing every car to have license plates, and it's all part of a tracking machinery. It would be like forcing everyone to wear a baseball cap with a barcode on it.

On the third hand, the police could just do facial recognition instead. I don't believe the tech is mature enough yet, but that's not a good thing to rely on. Even without a government photo ID database, they could just store anonymous faces and opportunistically assign names to them. So there's really no principle on which I can base my opinion, if I insist that restricting people (including governments) from using technology that doesn't harm people is wrong. The government even owns the roads on which they place the cameras.

TOR

[fa2k]

So how should we go about implementing TOR for real life? I envision it would involve lorries full of SUVs full of motorcycles.

We've had it in britain for years

[Viol8]

Almost everywhere you go in britain now (certainly in big cities) you see ANPR cameras slung up above the road. Sure, it has helped catch a few criminals but at what cost to personal privacy? You could argue that no one should be allowed curtains in their house because that way the police could see any crimes being committed such as burglary or rape. But I can't see many people going along with that. The current generation of politicians and police commanders just can't see the road to hell they're leading us down.

Re:We've had it in britain for years

[ickleberry]

11.34kg butane cylinders, is it?

cop's wife

[tommeke100]

These systems will be abused more often than they will be useful. I know what you did last night!
A famous person committed suicide some years ago here. Police stats showed that her 'police record' was accessed a couple of thousand times by cops that had nothing to do with the case.
They abuse the system to check upon there new neighbor, the daughters bf and the likes.
A centralized system detecting licence plates will now be used to check upon the wife and kids more often than the original intent.
It's just one big google for them.

Re:cop's wife

[Dcnjoe60]

These systems will be abused more often than they will be useful. I know what you did last night!

A famous person committed suicide some years ago here. Police stats showed that her 'police record' was accessed a couple of thousand times by cops that had nothing to do with the case.

They abuse the system to check upon there new neighbor, the daughters bf and the likes.

A centralized system detecting licence plates will now be used to check upon the wife and kids more often than the original intent.

It's just one big google for them.

There can also be benefits. Suppose a crime is committed and they have a partial plate. A computer can scan the images to help locate the fugitives. Or suppose a non-custodial parent kidnaps their child from the custodial parent, again this could be useful. Or suppose that there is a warrant out for John Doe for whatever crimes he committed. Scanning the data may show a pattern that between 8:00 and 8:30, he drives through this area with 90% certainty and law enforcement then just has to go there and wait for him to drive by.

Those are all legitimate things that such a system can be used for. If the data collected is abused, as in the case you describe, that is not a fault of the technology but of the actions of specific individuals. If the police force in question punished the officers that abused the system, then the abuse would be minimized. However, when there aren't consequences for one's actions, abuse can be rampant.

Re:cop's wife

[gatkinso]

It would be a huge suprise if this system didnlog log accesses and provide an audit trail.

Data retention

[Baron_Yam]

I argued with the cop responsible for bringing this technology to my region. I love the technology, and think it's very useful. However, I ALSO think it ought to have a zero-minute retention period except for hits against flagged plates.

Apparently, the police think it's a great idea to know where every plate was as far back as they can store the data - and since it only takes a short text string and a small confirming .jpg image for each plate, they can keep an awful lot of data. While there's great data mining potential there, like finding which plates were present at similar crimes across a long period of time to help identify suspects, I can just see so much more room for Orwellian abuse.

Re:Data retention

[misexistentialist]

Rarely do they have plates tied to a significant crime. The day-to-day use in my city is impounding cars of people who forgot to renew their registrations, and pulling over cars registered to a driver with a suspended license, which will mostly just be harassment. That's the best case usage to justify the juicy profit for the supplier, implicating innocent people in crimes and populace suppression is just implied

Re:Data retention

[Baron_Yam]

Forgetting to renew your registration should be a problem. However, they don't need ALPR to get you - the DMV (or MTO where I live) could simply notify the police in your municipality with a daily extract of people who have expired tags. Insurance companies could do the same. If we were serious about ensuring people were registered and insured, it's not a big deal to create the channels to do that.

It's not harrassment unless they're bugging you when you've done nothing wrong.

good point!

[nten]

So how bout this one? Each camera receives over the network the hash of licence plates for which a search has been ordered. The camera only sends hits for plates that hash to one of those values. That way the compromise of the camera does not divulge which license plates are being searched for, and the police don't get to know where everyone is, only the license plates they have marked as interesting for that area. They could mark every car registered in that county, but we could go further and require some amount of judicial overview to add a hash, or simply probable cause.

Simple solution

[hypergreatthing]

Do you want to change the laws? It's simple:
Just crowd source the same technology, keep track of all police cars and government officials. Watch new privacy laws created with extreme speed and efficiency.
It's never a problem when privacy concerns affect your average citizen. But when it affects those with those who are privileged it will always be a top priority to fix.

Not everything is this a privacy issue

[Dcnjoe60]

While I, like many others, am concerned with the erosion of privacy, I fail to see how law enforcement taking a picture of your license plate that is publicly displayed while you are on a public street can be construed as an invasion of privacy. Since anybody can see/view your license plate in these situations, having a computer scan it instead of an individual writing it down as you pass by is no different. If you use a pay-card to pay your tolls, they also know every time you drive on the toll road. Again, that is not an invasion of privacy as you are in a public space.

The concerns with this, from my perspective, are what are the potential misuses of this data, and why does it need to be stored for such a long period (indefinitely in some places)?

Re:Easy Solution

[Hatta]

And draw even more attention to oneself?

Re:Oh, Slashdot

[Hatta]

One would think that the ostensibly geeky audience of this site would understand that technology advances, and when it does, it helps everyone

Yes, it helps people who want to abuse the technology as much as it helps those who want to use it to make things better. We need to put limits on the former.

Re:No Right to Drive, No Expectation of Privacy

[hypergreatthing]

License plates are the first step.
Then facial recognition for people walking in the streets. Same logic can be applied to walking in public. Then as soon as you connect to the internet every site you visit and every post is considered public domain information.
You're on a slippery slope where there is no end.
That and i mean come on. Police search for stolen property? What fairy land reality are you living in?

Public Privacy is a Myth

[X!0mbarg]

Just curious here, but what makes people think that traveling anywhere in a public place with a unique identifier like a license plate somehow constitutes a private act that deserves any form of protection?

If you have a tendency to accelerate through yellow lights on a regular basis, or make rolling stops, and there are Traffic Cameras, (like in Toronto, or New York City) chances are it will show a trend and sooner or later, when you finally get into an accident. there will be a Mountain of evidence that will just 'appear' in court (that someone could Pay For) when the injured party decides to sue you!

You drive down the street, anyone can see you. Anyone with a camera, be it a phone, or even a Nintendo DS, can take a shot of you. If you go into a public place, guess what? People will See you! If you go anywhere there might be a camera, those images will be around as long as there's a means of storing them.

Welcome to the Digital Age! Anyone who thinks that data of any kind simply can't leak its way out of Vegas (or anywhere else) is deluding themselves in a very sad way. Anything that has been recorded will find its way into the public eye at the most inconvenient of times. Particularly, if there's any sort of Political Gain involved.

"What Happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" is a myth.
I like the Jeff Dunham quote, myself: "What Happens in DC Stays on YouTube".

Really/

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

That's the ENTIRE point of a licence plate.

How can this be a violation of someone's privacy when the entire point of getting a licence plate is to register and identify your car as belonging to you.

It's the reason they exist, so when you break the law driving your vehicle, the cops can figure out who to arrest or write the ticket for.

Sure, it might suck for a cop to drive down the road and tag all the people that have committed a crime and then charge them accordingly. Sorry if you feel your right and privacy to COMMIT CRIME is in violation here.

What are people bitter about, getting caught?

Yes, there are going to be regulations and yes I am sure there will be a cop out there that will abuse this power at some point in time. But its why we have courts and laws and the right to challenge any charge or conviction against you.

I am tired of people that feel they are entitled to privacy outside their home. You are in a public venue the moment you step out of your front door and so technology identifying you is no different then a neighbor or friend or co-worker noticing you parked suspiciously outside another neighbor's house boning his wife. If you don't want to be caught don't do the crime, or at least use a little common sense when committing it (like take a bus or ride your bike) and simply accept responsibility when caught.

Re:Welcome to the Future

[jellomizer]

I am OK with technology helping police do their jobs. The problem I have is their bosses (Government) sees fines as a source of income, Thus tries to setup laws in a way that makes it easier for people to break laws.

I haven't been in trouble for the following, but I found myself in the violation by mistake though.
Driving without an updated registration. What happened I moved, I changed my address for my license... However the DMV doesn't take you change of address for your license and apply it to your registration so when it was up to renewal I never got the paper work, then I realized after looking at my registration that the month was too late. Now with license plate readers I would expect unlike my address records the licence plate reader will be better integrated, then the worst part I will get a fine in the mail months, or years after I was driving illegally.

We even had a case in my City where people were getting Traffic Tickets Years after the incident because of automated readers just because the state hadn't got caught up with the paper work, and the City was short of cash so they just started giving tickets out, for violations that were years old.

Fines for breaking the law shouldn't go to the government, it should go to the victim(s) or if there aren't any then it should go to an approved charity of your choosing (without a tax deduction) Perhaps then when making new laws and regulation they will focus more on the greater good then making it so people will find ways to collect money.

Evolution of Law Enforcement

[ks*nut]

This is just a further step in the evolutionary path of law enforcement. If you have a camera recording a person's face, or in this case, a license plate, you don't have to get off your fat ass and interact with the people you were sworn to protect. And yes, with every step along the way, this country is turning into the totalitarian state that the founding fathers (Benjamin Franklin, in particular, comes to mind) warned us against. Thank goodness our citizens are armed to the teeth so that when push comes to shove we'll have a bloodbath of epic proportions.

I actually work with LPR...

[eepok]

Ya. I work in transportation and LPR is a growing successful way to capture a massive amount of data while not doing much. You can send enforcement officers out to check for permits, or you can use permitless LPR systems with which people register their plates. If someone isn't on the list, ticket! If they are, keep on driving.

In the parking world, the list of read plates are expunged nightly or at LEAST weekly.

Re:Get a lenticular license plate cover

[karnal]

It would also cost the tax payer less money in equipment costs.

BWAHHAHAHAA since when has anything the government improved on saved the taxpayer money?

It seems easy to fool

[bugs2squash]

I always imagine that these tools, and it seems there are more of them each day, will lead to complacency, the evidence seems so very compelling when it comes from such a fancy system. However, one day someone will game the system; maybe the villain just bolted his license plates onto the back of some unsuspecting stooge's car, or had a second set of plates, or even put out a dozen sets of duplicate plates, or put different plates on the front and the back of the car or do any number of things that simply makes the system unreliable.

Then the system will wind up providing an alibi for someone we would all have rather seen in gaol and its veracity will go unchallenged because it is so whiz-bang.

enforce the existing rules

[JakFrost]

Create a HIPAA like law for Law Enforcement gathered information ensuring privacy of information and enforce penalties against officers violating those rules and peeking around. FBI has a new system for that I hear so use them as a model.

In the healthcare sector peeking around gets you fired quite quickly.

New Hampshire wins again

[J'raxis]

Move to New Hampshire. It is illegal for government agents to use these things here.

Paparazzi

[phorm]

Indeed. This is more like having the Paparazzi on every street corner, and you're a person of interest.
We *know* that those "higher up" don't like that, so why should we put up with it from cameras.

Reasons

[operagost]

1. Limited resources. We only have so many public funds to support public safety and law enforcement. I would rather it all be focused on areas of known or likely crime.

2. The principle of limited government. In the USA, we still have the tenuous idea (opposed by the progressives) that governments have only the rights we give them. Police may not form policies and expend funds on ubiquitous surveillance unless we pass laws (at state or local levels) that give them that right. There are everyday, internal polices (like vehicle maintenance, hiring, salary, etc.) that would be unreasonable for the people to micromanage, but clearly a major change in police policy like moving focus from targeted enforcement to general surveillance is dangerous to human rights.

Re:Welcome to the Future

[mcgrew]

I am OK with technology helping police do their jobs

You're OK with them jailing your friends and family for doing somthing that harms no one? Someone you know and love smokes pot. You're OK with them being put in jail?

Now with license plate readers I would expect unlike my address records the licence plate reader will be better integrated

You would have just gotten pulled over and ticketed sooner.

We even had a case in my City where people were getting Traffic Tickets Years after the incident because of automated readers just because the state hadn't got caught up with the paper work

People who have never been in Chicago get parking tickets in Chicago.

Reading, not storing

[Aqualung812]

I don't know why we need to go through this every damn time

Because you are talking about something different.

Many (most?) people have no issue whatsoever with police being able use an array of cameras to read every plate near them, and alert the officer that the red Ford two lanes to the left is reported stolen. I know I don't.

Many (most?) people have BIG issues with a database that logs the location of every license plate to be later reported on when you want to track where a person was, or find all cars that were near X area at Y time.

If someone says "I don't see what why it is a privacy violation for a computer to read a plate" and you respond with "tracking and correlation", you're going to get tired of explaining your point to people that might actually agree with you.

TL;DR
Automated reading of plates does not automatically mean logging and recording the location of them.

They're a good idea!

[KermodeBear]

License plate readers are a great idea! Just this past week, it helped Mr. Police Officer know that my car registration was out of date. Mr. Police Officer was of course very polite as he told me about the $200 fine. Very handy! Now the government can raise revenue more easily!

Re:Oh, Slashdot

[artor3]

So recording personal information in a database by a private corporation (run by civilians), would be allowed to happen in your country? On public land?

We're not talking about personal information. We're talking about license plates. I guarantee you that millions of license plate images have been captured by Google's Street View. Whoops, there goes your argument.

Technology can be used for good or bad purposes. References: The entirety of human history

One man's good is another's bad. Keeping track of where cars are will help reduce car thefts and kidnappings, at the cost of ...what, exactly? You're afraid that the fact that you visit an adult film store might show up in a database, as if anyone in the world would care?

Re:Welcome to the Future

[GameboyRMH]

The worst part is that by the time most Americans wake up, first they will be called hippies and minimized in the media, and then the technology used by the police state will be too advanced for any meaningful change to occur. We will simply all end up being labelled as terrorists or have criminal records for showing up at an anti-whatever rally.

No need for police intervention, soon the corporate world will be effectively more powerful for this sort of thing. Show up at a protest with your phone turned on (oops! Not like the network would be online over a protest anyways), get tagged as anti-establishment/anti-authoritarian in a private tracking system like Trapwire, become as hard to hire as an ex-con, and the cops will keep a closer eye on you as well.

Turn the tables, be labeled a terrorist

[S1ngularity]

Imagine a FOSS project that does this in reverse. Regular citizens point their webcams out the window at smart-phones out the windshield. Some fancy P2P shenanigans and there is a huge public database that shows the locations of everyone. Now we all see where our police and pols are at all times too. How many hours before our masters are knocking at our front doors to shut down this egregious violation of their essential rights to privacy?