"Smart Plates" Could Betray California Drivers' Privacy

An anonymous reader writes with news that a California Senate Bill would authorize the state's Department of Motor Vehicles to test a digital registration plate system patented by San Francisco-based Smart Plate Mobile on as many as 160,000 cars. An article on the proposed trial in the Modesto Bee says, in part: "The state hopes the technology will improve efficiencies in vehicle registrations and potentially save the DMV some of the $20 million spent each year in postage for renewals. Privacy advocates say the approach could leave motorists vulnerable to government surveillance by undoing a Supreme Court ruling that required authorities to obtain search warrants before using vehicle tracking devices. 'It means everyone driving in California will have their location accessible to the government at any time,' said Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In 2010, the Legislature considered a similar bill supported by Smart Plate Mobile, with the noted addition of allowing for scrolling advertisements when a vehicle comes to a stop for four seconds or longer." If only it took smart plates to track you.

Comments

Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Kenja]

While I'm not wild about being tracked, I simply don't feel that I have an assumption of privacy while driving around on a public road.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[i kan reed]

Stalking in public is illegal. You cannot follow someone around and learn about their travels in public. I'm not sure that analogy applies today.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about when walking around in public places?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ liberals..
"I voted for the benevolent dictator and all I got was this panoptic totalitarian police state."

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are in public doesn't mean your location should be known by all parties with access to a database.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ackthpt]

While I'm not wild about being tracked, I simply don't feel that I have an assumption of privacy while driving around on a public road.

It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.

But think about this ... by order of the Supreme Court the police can't keep and share tracking information, unless there's a search warrant. Nothing bars private companies putting plate scanners out there to keep track of where you go.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[I'm New Around Here]

Of course there's no assumption of privacy when you are in public. But would you want a cop to stand outside every store and bar, taking pictures of every person entering and leaving, and noting what they are carrying at the time? Would you want a cop to follow you everywhere you go, talking to a radio show that is broadcasting it live to the entire city?

This isn't a case of "privacy while in public", this is a case of "being tracked everywhere you go", and generally the reason given is "for the public good", with "saving the taxpayers money" and "think of the children" thrown in as needed.

So if you are "not wild about being tracked", why are you downplaying this attempt at tracking every driver anywhere they go?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm not wild about being tracked, I simply don't feel that I have an assumption of privacy while driving around on a public road.

Phone calls pass through wires owned by multiple companies. Why should you have an expectation of privacy?

Your phone billing information is (was?) seen by a whole lot of people. Why should you have an expectation of privacy?

Sound inside your house makes your windows vibrate, and those vibrations can be detected outside your house. Why should you have an expectation of privacy?

Finally, IT'S THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT! WHY DO THE NEED THIS?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

While there is no legal assumption of privacy in such heavily public areas as malls and highways, there is an instinctive difference between "someone could see me here" and "someone is watching and tracking me." If for no other reason than the latter triggers deep self-preservation instincts, while the former tends to just inspire either caution or recklessness depending on how addicted the individual is to attention.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[jythie]

Privacy probably is not the right word. When out in public you automatically loose a lot of the privacy (and protection) compared to when you are on private land with visual barriers. However, a centralized tracking tool with unknown record keeping lengths and unknown access control is another matter. It is one thing to be seen in public, it is another for people sitting in a private environment (thus not subject to being seen themselves) and press a button to see your movements over who knows how long.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[cayenne8]

I wonder how difficult it would be to *ahem*....de-activate this tech on the plate?

I mean, maybe the power/battery accidently gets disconnected? Maybe a rock or hammer accidentally smashes some critical part of the plate system? What if the plate accidentally passed in front of some random, activated HERF gun...?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[jythie]

A variation of that, there are groups out there that photograph and try to 'shame' people going to adult stores. Imagine if they were allowed to access such a database....

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[I'm New Around Here]

Nothing bars private companies putting plate scanners out there to keep track of where you go.

Except for the fact the scanners have to be somewhere, and being on public property would require a permit and approval from the government. Scanners placed on private property would be legal with the landowners permission, but you would need landowners that don't care about privacy. Scanners on commercial premises, other than those operated by the business itself for its own safety, would probably drive away a high enough ratio of customers that the business would not allow the private company put any scanners there either.

On top of all that, how long would any scanner be in place before it is stolen or destroyed?

So, while there are not laws about private companies doing this, it wouldn't be a simple process for them.

Also, if it did come to pass that a private company did this, there would be dozens following on their heels. Then the people would demand laws against just this situation. Not guaranteed they would get them, but any city or state legislature could outlaw the practice right after millions of dollars are spent installing the devices.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have trouble believing this. Can you provide a citation?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

I wonder how difficult it would be to *ahem*....de-activate this tech on the plate?

I mean, maybe the power/battery accidently gets disconnected? Maybe a rock or hammer accidentally smashes some critical part of the plate system? What if the plate accidentally passed in front of some random, activated HERF gun...?

I think this plate has an LCD screen that displays your license plate number while you're driving, and public service announcements (and ads of course!) while you're parked.

If you disable it, it will be immediately obvious.

But my question is, do I have to buy another expensive plate when a rock (or vandal) cracks the screen, or will the state pay for it since they are the ones that decided that the electronic plates would 'save money'? They are claiming that the new plates will save money because renewals will be automatically sent to the plate rather than needing someone to mail out a sticker, but I have a hard time believing that this electronic device is cheaper than a metal license plate that can last decades with the only maintenance being putting on a new sticker every year.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[LocalH]

It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.

This is the mainstream mindset, ladies and gentlemen. Those who are concerned about privacy from the government as a default stance, even in public, are "paranoid or genuinely guilty". Yup. No room for the truly innocent to object on moral grounds, if you object to the government being able to track you then you must have something to hide, and to people like this that is the excuse they will then use to violate your privacy in a much worse way. "What have you got to hide, Citizen? SUBMIT"

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the responses are missing the point. The question was "Why is there an assumption of privacy?" not "Should we have a reasonable level of privacy?". Since we are monitored six ways from Sunday by the federal government, state government and commercial enterprises, it is ridiculous to assume that we have much privacy anymore.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[JBMcB]

Key word is assumption.

You have an assumption of privacy in your house. You do not in public.

That does not mean you do NOT have a right to privacy while in public.

I like John C. Dvorak's take on the issue. Cops are lazy. They'd love to have a computer spit out suspects based on tracking everyone everywhere so they don't have to go out and do actual police work - collective evidence, interviewing witnesses, etc...

The end result of tracking everyone will be - you were the only person driving down the street when this crime happened, so you must be guilty. Sure someone could have walked or rode a bike - but cops usually go with the evidence they have.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The assumption comes from the fact that tracking people used to take effort. You wanted to follow someone around without being noticed, you had to hire professionals to do the following around for you. Let's say three 8 hour shifts, 2-3 people per shift to evade countersurveillance. That's a lot of effort and money involved. And once get out in the open and the victim has it real easy to notice your goons. The idea that you could invisibly follow everyone everywhere 24/7 therefore was simply ludicrous, hence something you did not have to defend against.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that churches name? Westborrow Batptists... or something? With people out there like that, I don't think its too far of a jump to believe there's some conservative group out there trying to shame you into being pure of heart; and even if there isn't now, there could be.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ackthpt]

lol @ liberals..
"I voted for the benevolent dictator and all I got was this panoptic totalitarian police state."

It's like the Republicans put this into place, but a Democratic administration was figuring how to use it.

Reminds me of an old political saw: The Democrats invented the Deficit, but the Republicans figured out how to use it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like "pics or it didn't happen?"

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ackthpt]

On public property?!? Who said anything about that? Dang, haven't you ever see a billboard ?!?

You think private enterprise couldn't do the same thing, renting a few square feet of land or roof top to place a scanner? Heck, they could put these things in billboards, perfect spot already staked out. Watch your car go by, share info, know where you frequent, when you are there, etc. You think the tracking of your web surfing habits can't be extended out from the screen into the physical environment?!?

*facepalm*

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ liberals..
"I voted for the benevolent dictator and all I got was this panoptic totalitarian police state."

lol @ conservatives...

"I voted for the warmongering corporatocracy and all I got was a mountain of national/personal debt and a life of serfdom working at a global bank whose main profit center is sealing houses"

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Farmer Pete]

This just in! California is requiring mandatory "Safety" locator for all bicycles used in the state. The locator will only be used for safety related tasks.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

... are you joking? In California, a dramatically liberal-leaning state, the State Senate (68% Democrat) has proposed the adoption of a tech first developed by San Francisco-Based Smart Plate...

And you're really gonna try and somehow bash Republicans for this one? Sorry friend, this one is entirely a Democrat program from start to finish. You didn't need the Republicans to invent police state spying programs for you, you figured it out all on your own.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose the vehicles of the politicians, both public-provided and their own private vehicles including those of their immediate family, be the first to be adorned with these "smart plates" and run the trial for at least 5 years with a mandatory 5 year post-trial study of the results. By then all the politicians should have been charged, arrested, and convicted of numerous crimes and highway traffic act violations plus most of their illicit affairs will have been captured on the basis of GPS coordinates and time-of-day stamps. The People have a right to privacy. The politicians have no such inalienable right.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[WaffleMonster]

While I'm not wild about being tracked, I simply don't feel that I have an assumption of privacy while driving around on a public road.

I think this misses the point.

There seems to be a difference between being noticed in a public space where anyone including a LEO may note your presence and storing and aggregating records of all of your movements in "public" for all of time. Stalking for example is illegal in every state of the union.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Farmer Pete]

digital billboards that use prisms to target personal adds to each car. You were web searching for a new pair of shoes last night, so on your commute to work, you keep seeing Nike, Zappos, and ADIDAS everywhere. It'll happen. Just give it time.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ackthpt]

It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.

This is the mainstream mindset, ladies and gentlemen. Those who are concerned about privacy from the government as a default stance, even in public, are "paranoid or genuinely guilty". Yup. No room for the truly innocent to object on moral grounds, if you object to the government being able to track you then you must have something to hide, and to people like this that is the excuse they will then use to violate your privacy in a much worse way. "What have you got to hide, Citizen? SUBMIT"

You missed the key word up there. I'll highlight it for you.

We have limited privacy. We have phone numbers, email addresses, house numbers, apartment units, SSNs, Drivers Licence numbers, credit card numbers, etc. We have been tracked, recorded and our info shared for decades. It's only increasing now as the storage and processing means have reached a level necessary to maintain our info. The speed with which Philip Markoff, the Craigslist Killer, was tracked and apprehended should have made that clear.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[CanHasDIY]

Nothing bars private companies putting plate scanners out there to keep track of where you go.

Except for the fact the scanners have to be somewhere, and being on public property would require a permit and approval from the government. Scanners placed on private property would be legal with the landowners permission, but you would need landowners that don't care about privacy. Scanners on commercial premises, other than those operated by the business itself for its own safety, would probably drive away a high enough ratio of customers that the business would not allow the private company put any scanners there either.

Yea, $Deity help us all the day some private company or government agency learns about the concept of bribery.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Alastor187]

Just because you are in public doesn't mean your location should be known by all parties with access to a database.

I think the unreasonable part is storing of the data. I see this technology very similar to a 'speed trap', where passing cars are locally affected. Generally speaking 'speed traps' are accepted as a reasonable police practice. However, if in addition to checking speed the police also uniquely identified each vehicle and then stored the date, time, location, speed...etc, the action would be significantly more intrusive if not unlawful.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if it is considered harassment. And stalking laws do not apply to PIs.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[classiclantern]

Because of a thing called the Bill of Rights. You can't have free speech without anonymity, and the government has taken that away from us. You can't have freedom of assembly without anonymous movement, and the government has taken that away from us. The government has effectively taken away our Constitutional rights. BTW Mr. Here, our computer puts your vehicle in the vicinity of several known drug dealer's vehicles. That's enough probable cause to get a warrant to search your house, shoot your dog, and plant some evidence. We will be right over.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ liberals...

"I voted for my guy because he wasn't a conservative, and all I got was an administration that was completely indistinguishable from the administration the conservative guy would've put in place. But my team is still better!"

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

because rabble rabble rabble libertarianism rabble rabble fourth amendment rabble rabble

seriously, there's already a unique ID attached to your car, the same thing can be accomplished by putting some guy on a streetcorner with a camera. if you're that concerned about it, ride a bike.

Well, just go ahead and lick the government's boots then while you're at it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Joiseybill]

Tracking info, no. But static location info is not protected.

Red light camera footage is routinely archived and saved - even posted on YouTube as "safety" messages, or info-ads for the camera mfrs.
This archiving is against the law.(But no penalty is in place to enforce the data destruction!)
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018570960_redlightcameras01m.html
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/PL09/52_.HTM
Police vehicles are routinely outfitted with plate-recognition devices. Parking authorities use them to identify scofflaws; Routine police investigations will canvas the area of a crime, recording plates in order to develop a list of potential witnesses/suspects; patrol cars use them to alert on any match with stolen car registries or amber/silver alerts.

With many hundreds of static collection locations, it becomes easy to infer the general paths taken between these points. The tracking device becomes a redundant dongle - adding expense to the motorist who ultimately has to pay for all this added technology, and inviting tinkering/hacking to provide unreliable data back to the collectors.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[IndustrialComplex]

I think there is a serious problem when expectations of privacy can be voided by laws which can force disclosure of private information.

If there was a law passed which said that letters could only be sent in clear plastic envelopes then you couldn't expect the contents of those letters to be private either. The real catch is that the only reason you don't have an expectation of privacy is that the law currently requires you to behave in a manner which makes privacy harder to ensure.

Of course, that is all beside the point that just because something is technically possible, doesn't mean it must be allowed (or encouraged). I like to use the example of postal mail because when you send a letter you really have no mechanism to prevent the mail carrier from opening the letter and reading/recording the contents. We as a people decided that we did not want to allow that so we declared that someone opening a letter not addressed to them to be a violation of law.

We take things which are 'public' and put them into private via laws all the time. Someone using a telephoto lens to peer into your windows is illegal in most jurisdictions, even though you have no reason to believe that such a thing is not possible. Medical records are a BIG example as well. What's preventing your medical records from being copied and posted publicly? Nothing other than a law against such behavior.

I am not the only person who doesn't want a database to be compiled from my location data and available 24x7, so I pressure my legislators to pass laws which prohibit such collection of data. So again, expectation of privacy can be reinforced by law.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ackthpt]

digital billboards that use prisms to target personal adds to each car. You were web searching for a new pair of shoes last night, so on your commute to work, you keep seeing Nike, Zappos, and ADIDAS everywhere. It'll happen. Just give it time.

Exactly.

If Google or Facebook can haul in billions in revenues from tracking you across the web, this is the next step and it's wide open. Someone has probably already been working on it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[IndustrialComplex]

Of course you won't have to pay for it. But your vehicle registration will increase to $500/yr. Just a coincidence.

I've always been !amused by the fact that I need to 'renew' a registration when no information has changed. Selling a car, buying a car, moving a car, all require me to update my registration, but as long as the VIN/Title and the person it is associated with aren't changing, the registration should persist.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[IndustrialComplex]

I have trouble believing this. Can you provide a citation?

It is commonplace. Here is a quick example of people doing it at an abortion clinic.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130243&page=1

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.

"What have you got to hide, Citizen? SUBMIT"

Actually we all have something to hide. As Moxie Marlinspike recently wrote:

Our neighbour's eight year old daughter also chalks up the sidewalk (and
then plays hopscotch on what she drew), I wonder if she too should get
thirteen years:

http://tinyurl.com/qhstckc
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/27/occupy-wall-street-protester-could-face-up-to-13-years-in-jail-13000-fine-for-writing-anti-bank-messages-in-chalk/

This is reminds me of a good counter-point made by Moxie Marlinspike to
the "nothing to hide" argument regarding privacy:

> For instance, did you know that it is a federal crime to be in possession
> of a lobster under a certain size? It doesn't matter if you bought it at
> a grocery store, if someone else gave it to you, if it's dead or alive,
> if you found it after it died of natural causes, or even if you killed it
> while acting in self defense. You can go to jail because of a lobster.
>
> If the federal government had access to every email you've ever written
> and every phone call you've ever made, it's almost certain that they
> could find something you've done which violates a provision in the 27,000
> pages of federal statues or 10,000 administrative regulations. You
> probably do have something to hide, you just don't know it yet.

http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/3372 (lobster law)

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[RabidReindeer]

While I'm not wild about being tracked, I simply don't feel that I have an assumption of privacy while driving around on a public road.

And, unless they're different than Florida with its OnePass toll system, a lot of Californians are already driving around with machine-readable IDs attached to their automobiles.

I don't expect privacy these days. I just want the people who collect the data to use it responsibly. Preferably, that means not at all. Unless I rob a bank, anyway.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Obama bothered to pretend the first time around. Do Republicans even try to pretend they're conservative anymore?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

While I'm not wild about being tracked, I simply don't feel that I have an assumption of privacy while driving around on a public road.

There's a big difference between privacy and tracking.

If the police want to sit outside of a known brothel and record license numbers of all of the cars that visit there, well it's a public place and if they want to sit there and write down license numbers, that's fine. My wife could do the same thing, so I shouldn't park there if I don't want anyone to know.

But if they are doing detailed enough tracking to record all of the cars that went to a known Tea Party rally (or whatever political or social group has been deemed the enemy of the parties in power), then they can look for clusters of those same cars attending smaller (and 'secret') political strategy meetings and in turn track all of the cars at those meetings and find the intersections to map out the entire membership of the group (as opposed to just those that went to the rally). That's much more invasive monitoring and it's something that the police wouldn't otherwise be able to do without ubiquitous license plate monitoring unless they devoted so much manpower to it to make it virtually impossible do to on a routine basis -- electronic monitoring removes much of the friction that prevents overbearing monitoring by the government.

And worse, the data never goes away, so if you attended an event 10 years ago that's now been deemed politically unpopular, your attendance of the event can be used against you.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[dead_user]

Yeah, but people like move and stuff. It's more about keeping accurate voter registration info. The license part is just the impetus to keep the public coming in and registering.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point... it's not that people who are *concerned* about privacy are paranoid or guilty... but only the paranoid or guilty (or uninformed, I'd add) actually believe they are currently *legally entitled* to privacy while they are in public.

Thus, the notion that "knowing where my car is on a public street is a violation of my privacy" is an "illusion"... because it's simply not true.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

Of course you won't have to pay for it. But your vehicle registration will increase to $500/yr. Just a coincidence.

I've always been !amused by the fact that I need to 'renew' a registration when no information has changed. Selling a car, buying a car, moving a car, all require me to update my registration, but as long as the VIN/Title and the person it is associated with aren't changing, the registration should persist.

In California, most of the renewal "fee" is a tax, so that's why you pay every year, because the government is hungry and needs to be fed often.

I think the reasoning behind the sticker is to prevent a license plate from being valid forever if it's stolen (or you stop paying registration). Without automatic registration lookups, you could easily go for years without anyone noticing that you're driving around on expired plates.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Along those same lines, no one has yet to say anything about the recklessness by which most police dept. act. It's this recklessness, in fact, that has lead to needing such alternative measurements to monitor citizens anyway. In the wake of this recklessness comes a lot of potential problems when the police get the wrong idea from the gathered data.

What happens when:
someone gets lost, ends up in the wrong part of town...
rented cars are used for drug deals
license plate is stolen
hackers unite!

Anytime "stronger technology" is used to do mundane things that aren't even that big of an issue anyway, you should start expecting the worst. In Alabama, they have taken steps to directly connect your license plate with your proof of insurance. So when you get pulled over, you no longer have to have proof of insurance, because the police have that info when they pull up your license plate. This was done by having everyone log into a website, and provide their insurance information. It took me 2 minutes to do 2 vehicles.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

digital billboards that use prisms to target personal adds to each car. You were web searching for a new pair of shoes last night, so on your commute to work, you keep seeing Nike, Zappos, and ADIDAS everywhere. It'll happen. Just give it time.

They already have digital billboards that can detect what radio station you're listening to and target ads based on the demographics of that station:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/science-fiction-news.asp?newsnum=981

It's probably only a matter of time (or perhaps it's already here) before they snoop cell phone signals to figure out who you are so they can target the ad.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[buswolley]

I've said this before.

There are so many laws on the books that we are all guilty of a great many things. There are so many laws, I doubt you could drive from LA to SF without being guilty of a crime that could land you in prison and cost you thousands in fines. There are sooooooo many laws you don't know exist..

If we are all guilty, who are the ones that get punished?

The weak, the brown, or any other people the police decide they don't like.

With so many laws, its about selective enforcement, and with a surveillance state welll....they'll catch you if they don't like you.

We are all guilty. And the only all seeing, all knowing judge I could tolerate would be a just and forgiving God.

so if you are white and agree with the politics of the 1%, no worries.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[buswolley]

but it should be. that's the point. mr. A.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the scary part. Heaven forbid it be a high profile case and law enforcement has no other suspects. With media pressure to find "the guy", they're going to latch onto you like a pit bull with a femur.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[cdrudge]

Stalking in public is illegal*. You cannot follow someone around and learn about their travels in public.

* -check local laws for what constitutes stalking. Merely following someone around and learning about their travels does not automatically constitute stalking. Being violent, abusive, harassing, or otherwise making the individual fearful of potential harm is stalking.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[txoutback]

If Google or Facebook can haul in billions in revenues from tracking you across the web, this is the next step and it's wide open. Someone has probably already been working on it.

I believe google has been so busy working on the autonomous car for that very reason too. Inside such a vehicle, one would be a captive audience to their ad service on some level, and definitely subject to their consumer data collecting efforts.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I so want a t-shirt with that exact statement on it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[davester666]

Next up, "Safety" locators which all adults and children will be required to wear, because the two groups encompass either/both victim and/or perpetrator of child molestation.

Think of the children [unless you are a child molester].

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[kheldan]

It's an illusion held by the paranoid or genuinely guilty.

Tell you what, asshole: How about you let me install video cameras and microphones, accessible by everyone on the internet, all over the inside of your house, including your bedroom and bathroom. Then we can all watch you have sex with your wife/girlfriend/self, watch you take a dump, and everything else you do, and you can face criticism for anything you do that upsets or offends some complete stranger (but that in a sane world where there IS privacy, would be no one's business but your own). You still OK with no privacy? THIS IS THE WORLD WE ARE ALL HEADED TOWARDS IF DIPSHITS LIKE YOU DON'T GET A CLUE AND HELP PUT A STOP TO IT, RIGHT NOW!

Let me tell you one more thing: You know who else doesn't enjoy privacy? Here's the short list:

1. Animals
2. Small children
3. PROPERTY
4. SLAVES

You sure you want to be on that list?

Get correct, son. Before it's too late.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[shadowrat]

Stalking in public is illegal. You cannot follow someone around and learn about their travels in public.

George Zimmerman's defense team says you can.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Republicans try to pretend that conservative is what they are. Why bother pretending to be something you're not when it's much easier to just pretend a word means something it doesn't?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ewieling]

I think the unreasonable part is the wholesale tracking of large numbers of people without cause. In the past our privacy rights were protected only because it was not feasible to track everyone. Efficient government where every department shares data with every other department (and many private companies) scares the hell out of me. I like government, it does many many critically important things. However, I do not trust the government.

I wish someone at the NSA would pull the PRISM data for every member of congress, all federal judges, the supreme court judges, newspaper/television reporters and release the information to the public. It is just meta data, nothing important or privacy violating.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[acid_andy]

Then after that it'll be millions of corporately owned ad-drones hovering around, identifying you and chasing you continuously spouting targetted advertising. Then again, why go to all that trouble and energy usage if the ad could just be projected onto someone's glasses. What's that? You don't like Google Glass? Well you're required by law to wear these state mandated prescription glasses in public otherwise you could be endangering yourself and others with your fractionally less than perfect eyesight.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs a billboard if your car is self driving...just display the ad on the windshield. What, you thought Google was building a self-driving car simply because it's an interesting engineering problem?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

People on bikes don't show up on film?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this plate has an LCD screen that displays your license plate number while you're driving,

Awesome! Hack into that and you make the rotating number plates on Bond's Aston-Martin look like kids' stuff. This has all kinds of possibilities, almost none of which are what the original implementers intended.

(No doubt it encodes the plate number in some kind of RF signal too -- also hackable, I'm sure. Even better, consider the possibilities of remotely hacking into other people's plates. Mwa ha haa...)

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[SuricouRaven]

Targetted routes.

The computer can silently add a couple of minutes to your commute by picking a less-than-optimal route that drives past the shops sponsoring the service, in the hope a few drivers will be struck by the craving for some fast food or reminded they should do the shopping on the way home.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least Obama bothered to pretend the first time around.

And that explains his re-election... how, exactly? Clearly there's some cognitive dissonance here on the part of Democrats - "he's awful, just as bad as the Republican guy... but I'll vote for him anyway, rather than support a better candidate!"

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[clong83]

I'm curious why anonymity is necessary for free speech? Serious question.

The Constitution guarantees I can fundamentally express any idea I want to without fear of reprisals from the state, no matter how controversial or unpopular it might be. It does not guarantee, at least to my understanding, that I can express those ideas anonymously or without repercussions from my fellow citizens... If you feel anonymity is important (they wore hoods in the Klan, after all) you can do that. Take the bus, train, ride a bike, walk, etc, to your protest and don a white hood like they did in the old days. Don't bring your cellphone while your at it. Protecting your anonymity is on YOU, it's not a guaranteed right...

Anyway, it's a bit tangent to the main thread. I generally feel I have no expectation of privacy in a public area, and have no problem wih the idea of a "chip" that has the sole purpose of updating my registration automatically (some concerns about cost - what happens if it breaks?), but I'm also wary of implementing a system that could potentially be used or abused by a future administration.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[SuricouRaven]

Google google google... here we go:
http://planetivy.com/offbeat/53610/christian-activists-launch-campaign-to-shame-sinners/

"A group of Christian activists in Amarillo, Texas, have embarked on a crusade to rid the town of vice and sin. Repent Amarillo has been posting the license plates of vehicles belonging to ‘sinners’ on Facebook, in the hopes of getting the owners fired from their jobs. ... according to Repent Amarillo ... the term sinners includes swingers, homosexuals, people who visit strip clubs or shop at erotic stores."

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

And another thing.... Even though the costs of storage and processing has been and still is plummeting, storing and processing all this data still costs money. (Not as much as it would to have a cop standing outside every store taking pictures, sure, but still not zero.) That's our money they're spending.

How about spending it on something more customer (us) friendly? Or not at all?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the unreasonable part is the wholesale tracking of large numbers of people without cause.

But the data is going to be there, unless we're willing to pretty much turn off all of the networked conveniences of modern life. The data will ALWAYS be there.

The key is erecting strong firewalls between the people warehousing the data and law enforcement (this requires a strong judiciary to not just rubber-stamp every request for data from police, full transparency about the requests & their nature on the part of the data warehousers, and legislative changes basically telling law enforcement that they MUST have a narrowly focused search warrant for accessing any of that data).

Beyond that, you also make sure that the people warehousing the data are subject to strict privacy & confidentiality regulations, and make them liable to the consumer for fucking up and disclosing that data.

The data's out there, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What you CAN do is extend the protection of due process to law enforcement's access of the data - no fishing expeditions, no "give us everything on John Smith, and we'll tell you what he's done wrong after we review the data," no secret letters saying "Give us everything about John Smith, and you can't ever mention receiving this letter, and have no legal recourse to fight it," none of that shit.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Politburo]

Supporting a 'better' candidate in a Presidential re-election is functionally the same as voting for the other guy. No way in hell were Dems going to repeat 1980.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is no possibility for anonymity, over the net or by sending an anonymous letter maybe to a journalist, if every person's speech and writings have to be associated with that person's real-life identity and not an anonymous pseudonym, that makes it a lot easier for authorities to censor him or target him for further reprisal.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[SecurityGuy]

I suppose because the meaning of "assumption of (possible right)" has been corrupted.

The rules of society aren't handed down on stone tablets. Society works the way we decide it should. If a lot of people think, like you, that you shouldn't expect to be able to drive around anonymously and untracked in public, then you're right. There is no reasonable assumption of privacy while driving on a public road. If most people think we should expect to be able to travel unwatched, then perhaps we should, and people who infringe that right should be made to stop.

Personally, when I hop in my car and drive to work, I do tend to assume that nobody knows where I am from the moment I say bye to the wife and kids, to the moment I badge in at work. If most people agree with me, that argues my assumption is reasonable.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[PRMan]

The Constitution guarantees I can fundamentally express any idea I want to without fear of reprisals from the state

Tell that to Snowden.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point at all.

The point is why the fuck are our employees (govt) spending our money (taxes) to spy on us? And who authorized them to?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Ichijo]

License plate trackers have no way of knowing where you are, only where your car is. It's strange how people in the USA forget that cars aren't people.

Anyway, if you don't want your car to be tracked, then stop operating deadly machinery on public roads. Should we stop tracking aircraft?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

In California, most of the renewal "fee" is a tax, so that's why you pay every year, because the government is hungry and needs to be fed often.

Please let us not forget the $70 bi-yearly smog inspections (which become yearly if you happen to fail one). God I hate this state.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's worse if you're white and agree with the politics. Because if you have problems, there's nobody to fight for you.

If you're in a minority, there are a lot of like minded (or coloured) people who will fight for you out of fear they'll be next. So, yeah, the way I see it, it's better to belong to minority and have strong ties with them, because in the long run, that's the only thing that will protect you or your family.

Look at how ads look today, two white children, one hispanic, one black and one asian, but rarely according to the percentages ...

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"he's awful, just as bad as the Republican guy

Are you kidding me? The choices once again were:/p>

A) Obama - Biden
B) Crazy vet on death's doorstep that wants to bomb Iran, and a dangerously moronic Barbie-doll

A) Obama - Biden
B) Two guys that wanted to bomb Iran, and steal everyone's contributions to SSI and MediCare so the government wouldn't have to pay back the money borrowed from those funds to pay for its endless wars.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

I wish someone at the NSA would pull the PRISM data for every member of congress, all federal judges, the supreme court judges, newspaper/television reporters and release the information to the public. It is just meta data, nothing important or privacy violating.

I'm sure they have (for 'leverage'), but you'll never see it.

This isn't new, Hoover did the exact same thing with the FBI. What's new is the technology enabling it to store information on EVERYONE vs a few random communist sympathizers and MLK.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

And ... you're an American, I don't know why anyone would bother to change your opinions, you seem so intent on selling yourselves into slavery, I have to wonder if it's even worth the effort.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

In California, most of the renewal "fee" is a tax, so that's why you pay every year, because the government is hungry and needs to be fed often.

Please let us not forget the $70 bi-yearly smog inspections (which become yearly if you happen to fail one). God I hate this state.

If you're paying $70 for a smog check, you ought to shop around, my last smog cost $30 including the $8 the state charges for the certificate of compliance (though I may have gotten a discount by owning an AWD car so they couldn't do the full test on the rollers since they only had 2 wheel rollers). I don't mind the smog check if it keeps dirty cars off the road, my 10 year old car has always passed its smog checks.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Jhyrryl]

Why is there an assumption that this will only get used while cars are on public roads?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So any obnoxious rules the state places upon people is OK, since they could simply pay thousands of dollars to move away from their family, friends, job, and culture? Whether or not "we" need someone isn't an excuse to treat them unfairly.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually A better question is how will it be POWERED? AM guessing it's not solar plus a battery.(Hell, one of my first jobs was a night and parked in garage, so the car only got sun on the weekends if it was lucky.) I am thinking it will need to be hooked up to the car's electrical system. Which will require a mechanic for most people. Also, I know someone work as a mechanic at a car dealer and here is a quote from him, "About half the mechanics there TRY to repair the car right." So the modification of millions of cars will lead to a lot of small electrical problems due to fault installation.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reasoning behind the sticker is to prevent a license plate from being valid forever if it's stolen (or you stop paying registration). Without automatic registration lookups, you could easily go for years without anyone noticing that you're driving around on expired plates.

Why should anyone be able to check? Give the cops an app to easily run the license plate numbers, and do away with stickers altogether. Registration stickers (or fancy plates) are just DRM for cars - trust the user to not hack something in their possession.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

the studies in ohio have proven out smog checks have done absolutely nothing to help.

also, they are free. you can even do it yourself at some stations.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[nschubach]

What is the point of a free society if you are not free from tyranny when in public?

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

License plate trackers have no way of knowing where you are, only where your car is. It's strange how people in the USA forget that cars aren't people.

Anyway, if you don't want your car to be tracked, then stop operating deadly machinery on public roads. Should we stop tracking aircraft?

And do what, use public transit with your serialized transit card? Los Angeles has eliminated single-use paper passes, now everyone has to buy a TAP card. Those are the only reasonable options, and THE only options for the disabled.

"If you don't want your metadata to be collected, stop operating potentially-treasonous phones over public spectrum. Should we stop tapping the phones of suspected criminals?" Straw man arguments are fun.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[realityimpaired]

Please let us not forget the $70 bi-yearly smog inspections (which become yearly if you happen to fail one). God I hate this state.

If you fail one, you *should* have to get it more often. The point of the emissions test is to make sure your car is running the way it should be. Around here, they won't let you renew your plates unless you've got the piece of paper saying you've passed the test at all.

New cars are exempted here, at least... I think it needs to be 5 years old before you need to get an e-test done. I think also that the test is annual for cars over a certain age, but I've honestly never run into that limit. It's been almost a decade since the last time that I needed to get a test done: my last 2 cars were bought new.

Side note/question... while I realize that I'm in a different part of the world, and have different standards than they do in California... how hard is it to fail an emissions test? It's pretty near impossible for a new(ish) car to fail a test around here unless you have oil or fuel leaking into the exhaust system, not because the standards aren't that stringent, but because newer cars have been built with emissions control in mind. This may be different for American cars, but I usually tend to drive Japanese cars by preference. (though I did at one point have a Korean car with a Chevrolet badge on it... piece of junk, but it still had no problem passing the emissions standards... it was rated a ULEV for the California market).

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalking in public is illegal. You cannot follow someone around and learn about their travels in public.

That is not the definition of stalking.

George Zimmerman's defense team says you can.

That's because he wasn't stalking and did nothing illegal. You should really stop watching so much TV and educate yourself.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

It may have been $50 + a retest fee, I can't recall anymore.

Any older car will require an 'EVAP' test, that normally adds another 7-10 bucks to the cost.

You also have to go to special 'test only' stations, which are both A. more expensive and B. unable to diagnose what actually caused it to fail the test.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Obfuscant]

Anyway, if you don't want your car to be tracked, then stop operating deadly machinery on public roads. Should we stop tracking aircraft?

Any deadly aircraft operating on public roads should certainly be tracked.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Richy_T]

Not all aircraft are tracked.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. That's why they bought Android, too. Isn't it?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

God that gets me every time. You're right, of course - the more Google knows about us, our travel patterns, our interests, and our current location in real-time, the better they can target us with relevant ads for business near us that are selling things we might be interested in. The better they can target us... the more they can charge for ads. The more they charge for ads, the more yachts they can buy.

But let's wait a few minutes, and see how many people rush

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[clong83]

There's a difference between expressing an opinion or idea (protected speech), and reneging on a contract you voluntarily signed that forbids you from disseminating particular information (not protected speech). Snowden was completely free to rail against the idea of the government collecting phone records. He instead disseminated information about the government's activities. There is an important difference.

You can feel about Snowden however you want, and I don't care. Traitor or hero, it's your opinion, and it's perfectly valid. All I will say is that he knowingly violated the law because he thought it was the right thing to do. Sometimes it is the right thing, and it's open for discussion. But arguing that what he did was covered by free speech is factually wrong. Unless you equally think that someone at a government lab should be able to post blueprints for nuclear weapons without any consequences, because you know, free speech and government transparency.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem isn't so much privacy one but a practical one. If the average citizen lives in a world without privacy but one where the goverment has that very privacy it denies it citizens. What can the goverment do?? Go after anyone for any reason without the general public knowing. The goverment could look into someone's past see that when they were younger they visited a hotel at the same time as a known prostitute. Look her up, and put her on MSNBC or FOX NEWS to "swift-boat" the opposition. Hell, They could make the evidence with a few clicks of the mouse. And what about alternative non-mainstream lifestyles whether they be sexual, religious or communal. Don't like Gays or Scientologists, you're a few SQL quires away from a list of everyone who's been to a gay bar or church more then 5 times in the last year. Heck you could combine the two and find all the Gay Scientologist.

What can we do?? I don't think the ability to track people will shrink in the future. People are just to lazy to take the steps to protect themselves, especially since today's goverment isn't going after too many people for being "weirdos." So the answer in my view is to open the goverment up. No more secrets we can't offered them to see everything we do but not see everything they do; for if we allow that to happen. The Balance of Power that democracy thrives on will be swing towards tyranny.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[ackthpt]

If Google or Facebook can haul in billions in revenues from tracking you across the web, this is the next step and it's wide open. Someone has probably already been working on it.

I believe google has been so busy working on the autonomous car for that very reason too. Inside such a vehicle, one would be a captive audience to their ad service on some level, and definitely subject to their consumer data collecting efforts.

"I see you are on your way to Morro Bay, why not stop at [paid advertisement] Foobie's Tofu Barbecue? Just think of those succulent cubes of soy protein, marinated in delectable sauces and grilled with fresh vegetables and served with steamed or fried rice! Google rating ****"

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[superdave80]

I wish we would do like some other states and just register every 2-3 years to really save money on mailing out all this stuff...

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[superdave80]

I don't mind the smog inspections, since they help reduce pollution. But I hate the fact that I have failed TWICE (and nearly a third time) for things that have absolutely nothing to do with the emissions coming out of my vehicle.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[clong83]

Ad hominem much?

The GP discussed the Bill of Rights. The last time I checked, this is an American document. It was claimed that the Bill of Rights protects anonymity in speech. I refuted that claim, and asked him why he thought that. If he were to cite a court decision where this concept is upheld, I would absolutely change my mind. If he presented a cogent argument about why it is necessary or otherwise implied, I would certainly consider it.

You could have presented such an argument as well, but instead chose to go with the nationalistic attack. I'm sure whatever country you're from is full of very enlightened people.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

AGREED! Freedom to drive is in the Constitution! And damn if they can make me buy auto insurance!

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[AJH16]

Whoosh!!!

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

I don't drive a new(ish) car you insensitive bastard. Is that the law now? I mean I can only assume that's why they crushed so many of them via "Cash for Clunkers" a few years back.

Cars can fail smog checks for lots of reasons, my favorite was when it failed due to a light on my dashboard being burnt out (ie. nothing to do with emissions). Good times.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[icebike]

What else could be sent out to the plate?
Advertising, updated registration. Those are a given. Some people would be on board with that.

What about when they start sending out updates that say "Stolen". People still on board? Probably.
"Pedophile"? Still on the bus folks?
"Tax Evader"? Crowd thinning a bit?
"Prior DWI"? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
"Parking Violation"? Lonely in here...

Or what if the advertising just offends you. Not going anywhere near political or religious issues, but something like Drink Pepsi, when you are a Coke fan?

And of course what about when they are hacked (as they most certainly will be), and you start getting scrolling hate speech that gets you gunned down while driving through the 'hood.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[jnork]

... and C) all the other parties, which somehow everybody managed to ignore. No matter what their platforms.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[khallow]

I agree and I moved out. California didn't need me and I sure didn't need the abuse that I would get from California.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[khallow]

So the modification of millions of cars will lead to a lot of small electrical problems due to fault installation.

The resulting economic activity would be scored a win by a lot of politicians and bureaucrats. They can't force you to do something productive, but they have no trouble forcing you to chase your tail.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[g0bshiTe]

Next up, "Safety" locators which all adults and children will be required to wear, because the two groups encompass either/both victim and/or perpetrator of child molestation. Think of the children [unless you are a child molester].

In which case you'd still be thinking of the children.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol @ everyone

"I voted for the turd sandwich instead of the giant douche and all I got was this panoptic totalitarian police state."

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[khallow]

Any deadly aircraft operating on public roads should certainly be tracked.

My F-117 is a stealth aircraft for a reason.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[clong83]

The post office isn't anonymous? I put stuff in mail boxes all the time without a return address.

I agree in principle with you. I think an easy method of remaining anonymous in communications can only help a democracy. I have two issues though:

1) I don't see anonymity as being legitimately threatened. Pre-paid phones exist. Mailboxes don't ask for ID. Newspapers can print an editorial under a psuedonym. You can pay for things in cash. For home internet, there are legal and effective tools like TOR which can effectively anonymize your internet traffic. I could go on. You can do pretty much anything you want to anonymously, except perhaps use Facebook. It's certainly not automatic, but then again, it was never assumed by default anyhow.

2) While I agree it is a nice feature, I still don't see why it is necessary, which is what the GP claimed. You use state-imposed censorship/repercussions as an argument for its necessity, but that is exactly what the First Amendment guarantees against. The use of anonymity to evade state harassment is only necessary in a society without a guarantee like the first amendment.

Going one step further, I have gotten into discussions with people who argue that I should be afraid of what the government might do if they one day decide they don't like my opinions, and that's why anonymity is still necessary. But I think this type of fear is exactly the type of fear that the first amendment frees us from having to experience. If you have to worry about being targetted for your views, and fear reprisal, what the heck is the point of the first amendment? Freedom means freedom from that fear. Period.

A last thought: Supposing the government suddenly starts throwing people in jail or otherwise harassing people for their political opinions, and the courts are somehow silenced. What good does a "right" to anonymity give you? Do you really think they wouldn't be listening to phone calls in any case? It's not worth anything more than the "right" to free speech which is being ignored.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

I don't drive a new(ish) car you insensitive bastard.
Is that the law now? I mean I can only assume that's why they crushed so many of them via "Cash for Clunkers" a few years back.

There's nothing wrong with driving an older car as long as it's not emitting unusually high amounts of pollutants, my 10 year old car still passes the smog check (and my last car was 10 years old before I got rid of it and it too passed the smog check).

Cars can fail smog checks for lots of reasons, my favorite was when it failed due to a light on my dashboard being burnt out (ie. nothing to do with emissions). Good times.

Which light was it? If it was your check engine light, it is related to pollution controls since it, for example, will warn you about an oxygen sensor failure, which can lead to the engine running the wrong mixture and emitting more pollutants, or possibly poisoning your catalytic converter.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

One question: If the State will pay for it, where does the State get their money?

You get it in the rear either way, count on it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[buswolley]

Fine. Even if that is given without argument, the frequency of occurrence clearly points to a greater problem for those that have less wealth and power.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see. The campaign starts only when you enter the voting booth, then?

Obama & Biden were always the candidates, and have never NOT been the candidates?

There were no other Democrat candidates in the primaries? There were no third parties you could have supported instead?

Because all the Democrats love to agree that Obama isn't much different from Bush & Romney and their ilk, but not a single one of them seems to think it's their responsibility to vote for better candidates during the primary process. If all of you who hate Obama today had voted for someone else, guess what? There would've been a viable third party in the US as a result.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[anubi]

The license part is just the impetus to keep the public coming in and registering.

... and enclosing a check.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

It was indeed my check engine light, and regardless of it working (or not), my car's actual emissions were fine.


Old cars were never designed to pass the load (dyno) tests California now requires. They can generally be made to do it but even a mildly degraded catalyst or the wrong thermostat (for example) can cause you to fail an inspection.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[roc97007]

lol @ liberals..
"I voted for the benevolent dictator and all I got was this panoptic totalitarian police state."

I voted for the benevolent dictator, and he really was benevolent, honestly. It was paradise on earth. And then, the regime changed, and the new dictator had the same tools at his disposal, and wasn't so benevolent.

I'm sorry, I wish I knew how to make this funny.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[roc97007]

Then, don't disable it, hijack the content. We all wanted a license plate like the Aston Martin had in Goldfinger. Now we can have one.

Not to mention, displaying goatse at stop lights.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Sarten-X]

...And a degraded catalyst or wrong thermostat can cause you to emit extra pollutants before you get checked again, so no, you aren't going to be allowed to just ignore it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[cheekyjohnson]

I have an expectation that my government isn't tracking me just because I happen to be out in public.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[roc97007]

> Of course you won't have to pay for it. But your vehicle registration will increase to $500/yr. Just a coincidence.

I believe this was in California. It's already $500/yr.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[roc97007]

It's worse than that. Google "laws that contradict each other". There are circumstances where there is no lawful act.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[buswolley]

I didn't bring it up, but that has to be the case. Thanks for pointing it out though.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

We most certainly can get rid of the data, and we don't have to give up any conveniences.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[realityimpaired]

Old cars were never designed to pass the load (dyno) tests California now requires. They can generally be made to do it but even a mildly degraded catalyst or the wrong thermostat (for example) can cause you to fail an inspection.

I'll grant that, and this is where I'm confused. Here, it's done by a mechanic and if you fail an emissions test (which you need in order to renew the plate), they give you a list of deficiencies, and ask if you want them to fix it or will fix it yourself. You test again after it's fixed, and if you pass you are given a piece of paper which certifies you passed. Take that to the license bureau with your renewal fee, and you're done.

What are they doing in California that's different than that? Our own emissions testing program was designed after the California program, and was intended to be essentially the same.

Old cars were never designed to pass the load (dyno) tests California now requires. They can generally be made to do it but even a mildly degraded catalyst or the wrong thermostat (for example) can cause you to fail an inspection.

No, they weren't. Old cars also weren't designed to reduce pollution/smog output, which was kind of the point of the emissions tests. Old cars *stink*, and we're better off with them off the road.

And having a catalytic converter that's not running as it's supposed to or the wrong thermostat can cause the car's emissions control system to work improperly. Again... that's kind of the point of emissions testing: to make sure your car is working properly in the first place.

I get it... I was a poor student at one point as well, and was driving around a car that was 12 years old at one point, but I still tried to make sure it was being maintained properly, and that any replacement parts were the proper parts as proscribed by the manufacturer. Besides, people like me are the reason people like you have cars in the first place. Car ownership is one of the only places where trickle-down economics actually works....

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[cheekyjohnson]

I just want the people who collect the data to use it responsibly.

While you're living in a fantasy land, you may as well wish that they stop collecting the data at all.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

I'll grant that, and this is where I'm confused. Here, it's done by a mechanic and if you fail an emissions test (which you need in order to renew the plate), they give you a list of deficiencies, and ask if you want them to fix it or will fix it yourself.

What are they doing in California that's different than that?

You're not allowed to take your car to a mechanic to get a smog test for one thing. Older vehicles must go to a test only station, if it fails you get a piece of paper with the results and you take it to a mechanic who looks over the car and guesses whether he's fixed it or not. (since they're not allowed to test it themselves)

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

was driving around a car that was 12 years old at one point, but I still tried to make sure it was being maintained properly, and that any replacement parts were the proper parts as proscribed by the manufacturer.

OEM Catalytic converter (x2) = $2400 + installation
Quality Aftermarket converter (x1) = $500 installed
Emissions Results? Pretty much identical.
California (CARB) mandates exactly which parts you must have on your car, even on things which have no negative effects on emissions instead of simply checking the emissions results and calling it a day.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh shit i thought this was bad but i didn't see that one coming. That will totally happen too and we all know it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[HornWumpus]

Good old cars are smog exempt, you can bolt 400 hp onto your motor and have no smog problems.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[hawguy]

> Of course you won't have to pay for it. But your vehicle registration will increase to $500/yr. Just a coincidence.

I believe this was in California. It's already $500/yr.

You're confusing registration fees with property (car) tax, which is based on the value of the vehicle at the time of registration. The last registration for my 10 year old car was "only" $136. Still expensive, compared to many other states, but if you can't afford $500/year for registration, buy a cheaper car. Registration for a brand new $22000 car is $254, even a $50,000 car would cost $436 in registration fees.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[HornWumpus]

Sounds like a well that needs poisoning. Lets get some plate#s from the churches involved.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[jythie]

It is generally not very news worthy, but I have personally watched groups do it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[roc97007]

Sorry, hyperbole on my part. In Oregon, registration is $86 for two years. When I first moved here (from California), it was $28 for two years. As I recall, my last California registration renewal (late last century) cost $186 for one year for a six year old car. I naturally assumed it had skyrocketed in the intervening time.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please let us not forget the $70 bi-yearly smog inspections (which become yearly if you happen to fail one). God I hate this state.

Then move the fuck out. If you claim you can't for some reason that just means you like the benefits of living there but don't want to pay for it.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, gosh! Twelve years old, you say? How did you ever suffer the shame! A whole decade plus two!
Try twenty or thirty the next time you tell the story. It actually makes you look like you had it difficult.
My friends and I, as actual real life poor students, would have killed for a twelve year old car.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

digital billboards that use prisms to target personal adds to each car. You were web searching for a new pair of shoes last night, so on your commute to work, you keep seeing Nike, Zappos, and ADIDAS everywhere. It'll happen. Just give it time.

What if you were searching for porn? I would enjoy seeing those ads.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Ol Olsoc]

I wish we would do like some other states and just register every 2-3 years to really save money on mailing out all this stuff...

I just wish we would eliminate all taxes, and reduce government to zero

Then we will enter a new golden age of prosperity with no problems, All men free and happy.

acccch, gotta change brands of Tequila!

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[kaatochacha]

In this future, will buy small, cheap radios. I will set them all to some annoying oompah polka station and place them around each billboard. The ads everywhere will be for adult diapers.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

Thank heavens for living in Michigan, a state without emissions tests of any kind. As long as I have basic auto insurance and pay my annual registration fee (linked to the MSRP of the vehicle when new), I get a new registration sticker for my license plate ^_^

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

O_O Michigan's vehicle registration is ad valorem too, and for vehicles initially registered in 2012, the base rate was between $33 and $148. It even declines 10% every year for the first five and the 5-year-old rate is the one for the life of the vehicle from there on out. That means that if you bought a new $10,000 car it'd cost you $33 to register last year and a $100,000 car would still only cost $148. That $436 registration fee is a very good example of the vast differences in cost of living in this country.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[triffid_98]

Good old cars are smog exempt

Ironically, when my car failed it's smog last I wasn't able to drive it and I borrowed my brother's '65 Dodge until I could get it repaired properly.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put the plate in an oven for a while, or go near it with a very strong alternating magnetic field. Either way, it is bound to fry the electronics.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Reziac]

"If the police want to sit outside of a known brothel and record license numbers of all of the cars that visit there, well it's a public place and if they want to sit there and write down license numbers, that's fine. My wife could do the same thing, so I shouldn't park there if I don't want anyone to know."

There's the real point: Law enforcement (and gov't in general) should not be allowed to do anything they couldn't do as private citizens. If they are so allowed, then they must be "more equal" than the rest of us, who are demoted to second-class.

Oh, wait...

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So any obnoxious rules the state places upon people is OK, since they could simply pay thousands of dollars to move away from their family, friends, job, and culture? Whether or not "we" need someone isn't an excuse to treat them unfairly.

Maybe you are too young to remember air that looked like mustard gas. California put those smog rules in place for a very good reason, not just to bother people.

Re:Why is there an assumption of privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you won't have to pay for it. But your vehicle registration will increase to $500/yr. Just a coincidence.

I've always been !amused by the fact that I need to 'renew' a registration when no information has changed. Selling a car, buying a car, moving a car, all require me to update my registration, but as long as the VIN/Title and the person it is associated with aren't changing, the registration should persist.

In some states (speaking from Texas) your annual registration isn't actually for maintaining/updating your registration, it is a tax paid to the local county to pay for roads maintenance and what not. You pay for your "registration" at the County Tax Office and you then go to the DMV for all licensing items. You also need to pay for annual inspection stickers too.

Living in California...

[ackthpt]

I'd love the police to just be able to scan vehicles to see which are active, which plates do not match vehicles and which vehicles have insurance.

We are plagued by people who do not have valid registrations, borrow or steal plates and have no insurance.

Bust 'em on the spot.

Re:Living in California...

[bhlowe]

But that would be raaaaccciiiisttt..

Re:Living in California...

[gl4ss]

cops in usa don't have that? in uk at least they seem to. ocr.

but anyhow.. where was that case of coppers putting a tracking device on a car and arguing they didn't need a warrant?

Re:Living in California...

[Spy Handler]

I agree we have too many unlicensed/uninsured drivers in CA. But the cure they propose is worse than the disease.

If you put in place all the pieces required for massive surveillance on citizens, sooner or later somebody in power will abuse it. Most likely sooner than later.

The price of freedom is not just eternal vigilance, it's also the willingness to put up with inconveniences. Such as having illegal aliens with no insurance ding up your car.

Re:Living in California...

[misexistentialist]

Take away the cars, you take away their jobs. You pay for welfare or prison.

Re:Living in California...

[egamma]

I'd love the police to just be able to scan vehicles to see which are active, which plates do not match vehicles and which vehicles have insurance.

We are plagued by people who do not have valid registrations, borrow or steal plates and have no insurance.

Bust 'em on the spot.

This would make it more difficult for criminals to steal cars; they'd have to take some extra time to disable the tracking device and put some out-of-state plates on the car.

Re:Living in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

You care so much about this that you are willing to have all of your movements tracked? Why?

Re:Living in California...

[steveg]

The Supreme Court said they were wrong.

Unanimously.

Re:Living in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to leave this here... http://www.its.dot.gov/DSRC/index.htm

Re:Living in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love the police to just be able to scan vehicles to see which are active, which plates do not match vehicles and which vehicles have insurance.

We are plagued by people who do not have valid registrations, borrow or steal plates and have no insurance.

Bust 'em on the spot.

B-b-b-b-b-but that would be, errr, discriminatory towards, errrrr, "undocumented workers". Yeah, "undocumented workers".

Hope you're not holding your breath waiting for THAT to happen in California.

Re:Living in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

By "take away their cars" you mean "issue a small fine" which is what police actually do if your registration is out of date.

Re:Living in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

So your suggestion is to imprison poor people? You don't think our prison system is already crowded enough with poor people?

Re:Living in California...

[HornWumpus]

No, his suggestion is to take away any uninsured cars found on the roads. If anybody should be using public transit it's those who can't afford to pay their insurance.

In practice, CA does take any uninsured cars. They are impounded and the fees rapidly exceed the value of an old beater. But it's a low priority.

Re:Living in California...

[Smauler]

I'd love the police to just be able to scan vehicles to see which are active, which plates do not match vehicles and which vehicles have insurance. We are plagued by people who do not have valid registrations, borrow or steal plates and have no insurance. Bust 'em on the spot.

Yeah... this works until people realise they can just clone numberplates. It's pretty easy to see a car identical to your own, copy the license plate, and get a new one made. You get to drive round with impunity, while the poor sap who you copied the numberplates off gets all your speed and red light camera tickets.

They introduced a new law in the UK to try to get around this... it's now illegal to make your own numberplates, and you must supply ID to people who make them for you. Of course, this only inconveniences people following the law. People cloning numberplates just buy perspex and do make their own, since they are so easy to make exactly the same as legal ones.

I look forward to the day when they ban yellow perspex.

Re:Living in California...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of police departments do that already. They have three cameras on the cars and they instantly scan and log all license plates they see. I have noticed them on San Jose and San Leandro cars. They keep all records for at least a year.

privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

who here thinks that licensure and displayed serial numbering EVER intended to protect privacy?

"Name Tags" could betray anonymity!

Re:privacy?

[ackthpt]

who here thinks that licensure and displayed serial numbering EVER intended to protect privacy?

"Name Tags" could betray anonymity!

As one example of how police wanted to share this info... A CHP car is sitting at a ramp, tracking cars going by, all doing the speed limit, but posting the info to central computer. Another CHP car is sitting 20 miles down the highway at another ramp, scanning cars coming by and comparing time and information held in the central computer. Simple math and you find who has been speeding between points.

Re:privacy?

[gandhi_2]

I'm not sure that is a BAD use of the data.
If speeding laws are stupid then we should address that issue.
The same thing could be accomplished with a couple cops with stop watches.
If simple math proves you broke the law, I can't really drum up the outrage in this case.
I really tried though... but it IS thursday....

Re:privacy?

[bhlowe]

Good point. On the other hand, it wouldn't take long for people to start driving the speed limit..

Re:privacy?

[coyote_oww]

This is done in the UK right now. Only with cameras, and the ticket is mailed to you, saving the expense of two cars and six police officer salaries required for 24/7 coverage.

Re:privacy?

[alen]

almost every state has a 10mph grace before you get a ticket

if they time you going way over the limit, you deserve it

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, conversely, become incredibly invested in lobbying their representatives to get the speed limit changed.

Or, in a dramatic departure, finally just saying "fuck it, I'll ride public transportation."

Re:privacy?

[Farmer Pete]

They don't do this with toll booths, I can't imagine they would do it with license plate recognition. If they want to grab you for speeding, they have a bagillion tools already at their disposal that they aren't using.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a "speed trap" and is illegal by California law.

The CHP planes used to measure your 1 mile times against your car and big white lines painted perpendicular on the shoulder. Now they can "pace" you, but a time / distance measurement is illegal and your ticket will be thrown away.

Re:privacy?

[plover]

As far as I know, the police are legally prohibited from using many of those kinds of tools.

I'm setting the wayback machine for more years than I should, but I recall being told they used to do exactly this at the toll booths. You'd get a toll slip stating the time when you entered the turnpike, you'd drive the road, then when you paid your toll, the cashier would look at the timestamp. If you arrived before it could have been possible had you been following the posted speed limit, a nearby cop walked up to the booth and you were handed a speeding ticket. As you approached a tollbooth at the end of a long stretch of a turnpike, it was apparently common to see cars parked on the side of the road, waiting for the clock to run down so they wouldn't get a ticket.

Eventually it was contested in court, and it was determined that because the police officer didn't actually witness you at the time you took the toll slip as well as the time you turned it in, he had no proof you were the driver during the time when the speeding event occurred so the ticket was invalid. For a similar reason, the old "ribbon radar" speed traps that local police used to set in small towns were contested and ultimately thrown out. I think these practices were ended sometime in the 1960s.

Re:privacy?

[SuricouRaven]

Speeding fines go straight to the police department. It's a nice way to suppliment their budget, and there are sneaky ways to maximise income. For example, place one point at the top of a steep hill, and the other at the bottom. As drivers come over the top they naturally accelerate under gravity, and can easily exceed the limit for a brief stretch as they restabilise their cruising speed. That brief stretch is all that is needed for a fine though.

We went through it in the UK years ago with speed cameras - a lot of problems with them being placed at the bottoms of hills for just that reason, or on long straight stretches of low-traffic rural road where speeding was common but accidents very rare. The practices mostly stopped after an intensive tabloid campaign demanding stricter central regulation against such abuses of speed cameras as income-generators.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO Law Enforcement dept should be dependent on fines to operate. That is NOT supposed to be the purpose of why we fine people. The fact that you think its ok and correct is very wrong.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bad use of the data.

If you're not breaking the law, nor are suspected of breaking the law, the police or government have no business tracking your whereabouts at all.

And most speeding laws are atrociously corrupt, because that turn law enforcement and the court system into profit centers for the government, which is fundamentally abusive.

Re:privacy?

[SecurityGuy]

That doesn't really work here, because a conventional speed trap is just measuring your location over points much closer together. Infinitesimally, I suppose, if we're talking doppler.

I wouldn't have any real objection to such a system if the collected data was purged once it was no longer useful for its intended purpose. In this case, once more time has elapsed than it takes you to cover 20 miles, though really I'd be fine with some frequent periodic purge like daily. The problem is that data, once collected, is often never deleted.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do? I had it pounded into me when I was in drivers ed (~15 years ago) that they could pull you over if you went so much as 1 MPH over the limit. They just didn't, "because they were "nice"". That said I've heard of more than a few people in my state (Michigan) that challenged their tickets and most traffic judges wouldn't look twice at a ticket less than 10 MPH over the limit, they'd throw it out without discussion. Also every state seems to throw its motorists a bone as far as speeding, I know again in my state if they haven't done a speed study on a road within a set amount of time (5 years I think) they can't write tickets for anything under 55 MPH (standard roads) and 70 MPH on freeways no matter what is posted.

Re:privacy?

[HornWumpus]

In CA traffic runs 15 over. If you don't keep up with traffic or pull over when you have 4 cars behind you, you get an 'obstructing traffic' ticket.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conventional speed traps also don't send your current time and location back to a central repository.

Also, what happens when the clocks are slightly out of sync between the two installations, and suddenly show that everyone is going 10-15 mph faster than they really are? Or perhaps the locations are slightly off, closer together than they claim to be?

Its an abuse of power.

Let's all pay our "fair share"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't these governments deserve even more tax revenue to use against us?

digital screen can easily get damaged

[Joe_Dragon]

On cars / trucks just by being out side outdoor signs alleys seems to have at parts of the them not working.

Re:digital screen can easily get damaged

[I'm New Around Here]

I have a question for you.

Do you type your postings in a foreign (non-western European at that) language in Google Translate, then paste the results here?

Root your license plate?

[getto man d]

If you can root your license plate, does it affect your wanted level?

Re:Root your license plate?

[Mahldcat]

....or what would be cool is to figure out how to at the push of a button (or the brake) to get it to clear out for those times when they decide to nail people with red light cameras....

Re:Root your license plate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just buy a horse team and wagon just after selling my car so the "authorities" cannot track where the horse team and wagon were purchased.

Wow, Modesto Bee on slashdot

[grasshoppa]

Well, now I've seen everything. Time to hang it up and get off this crazy thing they call the "Interwebs".

Re:Wow, Modesto Bee on slashdot

[ackthpt]

Well, now I've seen everything. Time to hang it up and get off this crazy thing they call the "Interwebs".

Really! Consider how yesterday we had an article about Valley Fever around Avenal from the BBC. Now we're getting closer to the source. I think this may be the start of an invasion of privacy. You know, like when you find a Slashdot camera duct-taped outside your front door.

Re:Wow, Modesto Bee on slashdot

[grasshoppa]

Trust me, "getting closer to the source" doesn't do you any good. That just means you are getting a native's perspective. As I must, sadly, identify myself in that group, let me warn you in advanced; we natives are small minded, intelligence fearing simpletons. In general.

Point being, trusting a newspaper closer to the source is like trusting the "Weekly World News" about, well, world news. Sure, you *can* do that, but you have every reason not to.

why is this such a problem?

[alen]

in NYS i've had the same plates for 10 years, now on my 4th car in that time frame. every two years i pay $170 for a window sticker to register my car with the state. when i buy a new car i pay the DMV to transfer the registration to my new car

what is the point in new license plates and how is this costing so much money?

Re:why is this such a problem?

[CrimsonAvenger]

It'll save the gov the cost of a postage stamp every two years to remind you to pay for your window sticker.

At least, that seems to be the argument they're making.

Easier to spoof?

[Mahldcat]

It strikes me...wouldn't enterprising people figure out ways to spoof/clone the signals sent out in some manner? What is scary is given the nature of how these systems get implemented + human nature...how soon before they also accuse somebody of something based entirely on the data collected by these "smart plates" versus actual eyeballs on target? Now the best thing in my book if this were to go through? Figure out how to spoof the plates, and target all of those folks who sponsored and approved the bill, make it look like they had a habit of visiting the most odious of places, and then leak that data to the press...

Issues with money...

[Capt James McCarthy]

" potentially save the DMV some of the $20 million spent each year in postage for renewals."

Why would it safe the DMV money. Isn't that paid for when you pay for the registration anyways as part of the fee/tax?
I have no issue with it, but the savings should be passed to those paying the bills, not for the govt to keep. But they love taking and keeping our money.

Re:Issues with money...

[jittles]

" potentially save the DMV some of the $20 million spent each year in postage for renewals."

Why would it safe the DMV money. Isn't that paid for when you pay for the registration anyways as part of the fee/tax? I have no issue with it, but the savings should be passed to those paying the bills, not for the govt to keep. But they love taking and keeping our money.

My assumption is they still want to charge you postage/labor for mailing out the registration sticker, but not actually mail anything. So they don't intend to pass the cost savings (if there really are any) to the customer, but instead make more money in taxes.

Re:Issues with money...

[Anonymous Coward]

/AGREE

The cost of my registration pays for the postage for them to mail me a sticker.

Re:Issues with money...

[mjr167]

Because the guys that pass the bill will be hired by the firm that makes the plates and get a cut from every plate sold.

Re:Issues with money...

[phantomfive]

I have no issue with it, but the savings should be passed to those paying the bills, not for the govt to keep.

Taxpayers don't pay all the bills of the government. This is true in almost every locale. A good chunk of it comes from borrowing.

Privacy! Privacy! Privacy!

[fustakrakich]

It's gone... Forget about it. It's up to us to demand and acquire the same transparency from the state as it demands from us. Wake me up when you people decide to vote for somebody that can show respect. Otherwise you're a bunch of whiny fools.

But think of the USPS!

[Anonymous Coward]

potentially save the DMV some of the $20 million spent each year in postage for renewals

If they stop mailing all that stuff, the post office is going to fall behind even further.

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our smart-plate overlords!

Power?

[magarity]

Where does the power come from for these scrolling advertisements? Will be owner be required to supply a wiring kit to hook it up? Otherwise, how long would a battery last; in an LA traffic jam these plates are going to be running ads for hours at a time.

Re:Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I required to provide power? Power is not free. Do these ads subsidise my GAS?

Granted, it doesn't take much gas to generate power in the long run of operating a car, but, you can't tell me that power is free. My gas turns pulleys under my hood. One of these pulleys is connected to an alternator. Under load, this causes the pulley to resist the engine's force. It's a SMALL load, but, state wide, we could be wasting $1000's maybe even $100000's on GAS to power an ad for ACIDENTES!!! 222-2222

That being said, do I HAVE to provide 12VDC? what about 6V from my old BUG? 24V from my truck? 110AC from my inverter? 220 from my other inverter?

Re:Power?

[plover]

That being said, do I HAVE to provide 12VDC? what about 6V from my old BUG? 24V from my truck? 110AC from my inverter? 220 from my other inverter?

I think you should provide 15 kV from a neon transformer, and see how well their circuitry likes being overclocked.

Re:Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does the power come from for these scrolling advertisements?

There is a mechanical key, which the FBI field agents will wind every time they upgrade the GPS tracker hidden behind your bumper.

Racism and crime

[coyote_oww]

It's racist to assume that people violating the law are a particular race. You just have to stop thinking altogether, or you're racist.

Re:Racism and crime

[bhlowe]

Many crimes ARE committed by different races in unequal percentages. Facts are not assumptions. The gist is this would impact unlicensed, uninsured, undocumented and the poor harder than other groups.

Re:Racism and crime

[coyote_oww]

Sorry, forgot the

Smart technology isn't always smart

[grantspassalan]

Smart license plates, smart cars, smart phones, smart meters, smart tollbooths, smart appliances and who knows smart everything else are perhaps not always so smart after all. Maybe what we need is smart people, especially in government. There seems to be a shortage of those these days. Is there a "smartness" conservation law that ensures that the smartness in the universe remains constant? Are gadgets becoming "smarter" while people are becoming dumber?

It's not the tracking in and of itself.

[Virtucon]

It's the data collection process and what is used with that data. With Data Mining techniques getting more sophisticated any tracking or automated data collection process, such as license plate scanners erode our privacy. Sure, if you have outstanding tickets or a warrant out for your arrest, an automated system for identifying your vehicle would be beneficial however we start casting bigger and bigger fishing nets and a lot of innocent fish get caught by the same net. How do you ensure that all that data for non-offenders gets removed or does it become another source of information that the government can use to track you? How often were you parked on this street? Oh we say you go over a bridge 50 times? It's a fine line that we cross in the names of efficiencies brought to bear to "reduce costs." There's already a report that the IRS has a system that allows state governments to access private information in the name of efficiency even though nobody in Congress has ever apparently approved such a system.

Bring it on!

[kiick]

I for one would love to have a smart license plate. Just think of the hacking opportunities!

Jailbreak your license plate and display snarky messages to the other drivers on the road. Change your state to "confusion". Temporarily change your plate number and see how many red light cameras you can trip in a row. "Borrow" your rude neighbor's id and run up their toll bill. Steal a smart plate and hack it so you don't have to pay to register your vehicle. The possibilities are endless.

Any "smart" whatever can and will be hacked. If the incentives are large enough, those hacks will get widely distributed and used. How many incidents of license plate hacking will it take before the police decide it's just an expensive way to enable smart criminals? Not too many, I'd guess.

Another ability the state will have and not use.

[ai4px]

Here in South Carolina, we have many running around with expired tags and the police do nothing about it. Insurance companies notify the state when a policy is cancelled and the state is supposed to send you a letter requiring you turn in your tags. So you don't and they don't do anything about it. The police all but ignore no tags and expired tags which are so easy to spot, So we need "smart tags" that allow me to renew my tag without postage? Are you kidding me? The problem here is not the postage... it is people not complying with the law and the state not doing a damn thing about it.

Special CA license plates are not in the system

[schwit1]

http://www.infowars.com/special-license-plates-shield-officials-from-traffic-tickets/

California Department of Motor Vehicles' "Confidential Records Program," which was created 30 years ago to keep DMV records of police officers private from criminals. The program has since expanded to cover "hundreds of thousands of public employees - from police dispatchers to museum guards - who face little threat from the public. Their spouses and children can get the plates, too.

Re:Special CA license plates are not in the system

[Anonymous Coward]

The general public only recently became of aware of this program when a union demanded this "perk" during contract renegotiations. Contrary to your referenced article, it is my understanding that said registered plates cannot be issued tickets. Period. Any automated systems simply reject or bounce a citation. And if a cop writes a ticket, the system will not allow it to be processed. It's not expunged, just never goes anywhere.

Jerry Brown campaign contributor anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's from SF, was Mayor of Oakland, and I imagine has quite some ties there. Suspicious how this is getting pushed through during his term, no?

City wide 'Car Pools'

[Anonymous Coward]

If 1000 drivers get together and pool their vehicles Big Brother won't really have much of a clue about who is driving what car when.
Sitcking it 'to the man' like all good hippies

{yes I am old enough to have taken part in the Hippy era having been born in 1948.}

Here's how you handle this bullshit if it comes up

[kheldan]

1. Receive electronic, tracks-you-everwhere plates
2. Break into several pieces
3. Go to DMV, tell them "kids broke them trying to steal them off the car"
4. Ask for regular plates
5. If denied, repeat the process until they give up, give you normal, non-privacy-violating license plates

scrolling distractions

[Khashishi]

I wonder how many accidents are caused by scrolling advertisements and advertisements in general.

Im confused

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought Cali residents want big government in control of their lives.

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

How much money did Smart Plate Mobile give to their state congress critter. If the answer is higher than zero, I say the state should go eminent domain all over their IP. The only worse thing would be if they got grants for it, then turned around and got an even bigger handout. Looks completely like another make-work program with its fixing of something that isn't broke in the name of jobs. /barf


tl;dr: Lobbying to suck off the government teet is heinous, more-so if your business was built with government funds.

Selfish crook bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

This shouldn't save them 20 mil. They should lower registration cost per user. Of course they will instead save the shipping and tack on an extra fee for new advanced digital convenience blah blah blah.

This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a record of some sort of ID that is unique(or nearly unique) which follows you around means your habits can be tracked. News at 11.

Re:Here's how you handle this bullshit if it comes

[Anonymous Coward]

Plates aren't free, the DMV is going to charge you every time you go into get them replaced.

citation needed - PIs have almost no privileges

[raymorris]

Citation needed. I'm a former PI and have never heard of such a thing.

I know of two things PIs are allowed to do:
Charge for investigative services
In specific circumstances, contract with a bondsman to apprehend their fugitive

Re:citation needed - PIs have almost no privileges

[g0bshiTe]

My Rasberry PI can do so much more.

???hello???

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wish someone at the NSA would pull the PRISM data for every member of congress, all federal judges, the supreme court judges, newspaper/television reporters and release the information to the public. It is just meta data, nothing important or privacy violating."

Beyond the fact that other whistleblowers have stated that it happened, it is quite obvious to anyone with a brain that these thugs used this information as leverage. It sure explains Obama's complete 180. It also explains just how the Executive branch has transcended our government of checks and balances.

Advertisements?

[ThosLives]

Forget about the privacy stuff - what about the advertisement crap!?

If "they" are going to use my car to display ads to someone else, then I better not have to pay anything for my registration. That should be paid by the people who want their ads displayed using my property.

assumption of privacy in public

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but even when I'm in public, I assume that I enjoy privacy, unless I see evidence to the contrary:

  - A person within listening distance makes me change my belief that my conversation was private.

  - A person close enough to see and recongnize me makes me change my belief that my identity was private

  - A person following me no matter what direction I turn make me change my belief that my location was private

but otherwise my assumption is that I have privacy. Just like when I'm at home, if someone is nearby I can no longer assume my converation is private. That's why I leave the room to have a phone conversation.

Re:Another ability the state will have and not use

[PRMan]

My friend is a traffic cop and he says they don't even look at registrations until they are 6 months out of date. The reason is that it is almost invariably a DMV is late problem and not a driver is late problem.

I Can't Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be easy to program the screen or a look-alike to display a plate of another vehicle of the same make, model, and color while I engage in various criminal acts.

Re:Another ability the state will have and not use

[Cro Magnon]

In Kansas, you practically have to wait in line for 6 months!

eliminate the stickers

[denbesten]

Eliminating the sticker, would eliminate the dependence on USMail. When I send in my payment, they update their database, end of story.

Seems much cheaper, easier and robust than installing electronics and communications equipment on each vehicle. On the other hand, this may increase the desire to install anpr on patrol cars.

Smart Devices For Dumb Citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart Plates, Smart TVs, Smart Phones, ...etc.
Smart devices for dumb people who want to give up their privacy.
I think I know where this is going.

Insurance Scoflaws

[s122604]

They should enable plates to report when auto insurance expires
uninsured motorists are a menace. This could really the situation better, when people realize that any cop car driving by can know your insurance is expired.

Non Standard Mounting Bracket

[PPH]

I have to drill a hole right through the center of my plate to mount it on my vehicle.

I know how I'm going to 'save money'...

[superdave80]

I think I will wire in a switch that can randomly kill the power to this thing. Every time I go over the Golden Gate Bridge (which now reads license plates to send you the toll bill rather than collecting money at the bridge), I will save $6. Ka-Ching!!!!

Re:Here's how you handle this bullshit if it comes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the DMV already charges you for damaged or stolen plates. Here's a real FUN thing. If you get both your personalized plates stolen they won't issue you a new plate with the old personalization. Of course, I guess it makes sense see they run into the problem of two cars having the same plates.

Ads??!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one around here that is significantly more infuriated about having more ads forced on me?? Seriously, wtf.

I smell corporate special interests at work!

[sabt-pestnu]

"When you have 400 to 500 vehicles, you can imagine having one person parked at a DMV office every day processing registrations," Hueso said. "The DMV would prefer not having that person in their office every day and just send the registration electronically."

... you mean, like a Fleet License?

Jim Lites, a lobbyist hired by Smart Plate Mobile, said the pilot program created under the current bill will focus on vehicle registration efficiencies that can be created, not advertisement revenue.

"Let's focus on that and let the Legislature decide what they would like this technology to do, assuming this pilot is successful," Lites said.

Ah, yes. Like the first bill that proposed advertising...

..and potentially save the DMV some of the $20 million spent each year in postage for renewals.

... out of, er, how much was vehicle registration each, again? What are the costs per-plate? And are you counting the most expensive component, salaries, or just physical costs (postage, manufacturing, etc)? Who gets saddled with the price of the new plates, which will undoubtedly be more expensive each than current enameled metal wafers?

Can we trust that they've considered issues like, say...
- vehicle battery removal or electrical system failure
- license display while vehicle is off.
- visual view cloning, where the displayed value has been altered
- remote view cloning, where only the radio-reported value has been altered
- antenna loss or disablement
- accident robustness (what happens in a crash? a fire? a chop-shop?)
- remote hacking, where someone mimics authorities to alter your plate, perhaps while you are in transit
- legal evidence trails, where changes to your license can be tracked both from the plate hardware and the server hardware
- obsolescence plan: in 5 years, when they go to a different system, what happens to the old hardware, servers, data
- transparency: you know someone's going to ask for the code for this, to prove they were hacked. Is the government prepared to fork over?

Y'know? I don't think that the current legislation considers any of this. I think it's all "let's hand this company a wheelbarrow of money" before the public shoots the idea down.

Privacy and vehicle tracking devices ..

[dgharmon]

"Privacy advocates say the approach could leave motorists vulnerable to government surveillance by undoing a Supreme Court ruling that required authorities to obtain search warrants before using vehicle tracking devices".

We in Britain don't bother with such legalities ..

"Police-enforced ANPR in the UK"

Re:Privacy and vehicle tracking devices ..

[AC-x]

"Police-enforced ANPR in the UK

The article's talking about something a little different tho (the US already has number plate recognition), which seems to be that the plates themselves are able track vehicles (so not just where the number plate cameras are)

states have sold databases to commercial firms

[peter303]

To raise money during the past two recessions. Just another item for advertisers to put into their megabases.

Police cars with plate recognition cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Quebec, stickers were abolished many years ago. Now police cars are equipped with plate scanners and they'll park on the median in high traffic areas pulling over offenders. It's an honour system where if you don't honour it, you get a ticket.

Seems ridicuously OTT compared to the UK's tax sys

[AC-x]

Two screens to display your car's registration? That seems a bit OTT! I always thought the licence plate expiry thing was also a massive hassle, in the UK cars have permanent plates, registration is simply stored by the DVLA (DMV equivilent) and to show you've paid your road tax you stick a small paper disk on your windscreen

Do away with licence stickers

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, our government has done away with licence stickers. Police cars have cameras that can read licence plates and check the database at the "DMV" in real time to see if the licence is valid.

They saved money by not printing licence stickers, not by replacing licence plates with expensive electronic billboards.

lol. Guess I'm a PI with a Pi

[raymorris]

Lol. I was a nerd before I was PI, so I guess I'm a PI with a Pi. Actually I use Arduinos, though.

Privacy issue solved!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3MScreens_NA/Protectors/Shop_Products/Product_Catalog/?N=5019651&rt=c3

easy fix for privacy on a computerized screen...

Re:Here's how you handle this bullshit if it comes

[kheldan]

*sigh* FINE, just tell them (if this rediculous bullshit even comes up) that you don't want their shitty privacy-violating plates. Fuck the police, whatever, I fucking give up. I just hope I don't live long enough to have to deal with bullshit as rediculous as this.

Totally unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Plates are already unique, just renew online (like you can now) and get rid of the stupid requirement for a sticker. The cops can read your plates anyway and the system can auto-query to see if registration is up to date.

Criminals are going to love this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet these things won't be too hard to hack and have it display any license plate number or image file you want, or activate the advertising mode while driving.

Yes sir officer, I saw the getaway car clearly. It was a light blue 2010 Subaru with a coke-cola ad running on the back.

Hey, the boss yelled at me again today, lets load up his license plate and run a few red-light cameras.

Tesla coil

[ridgecritter]

like the kind that is used sometimes for detecting leaks in glass vacuum systems. Handheld, 50+KV, nice fat 1" air spark discharges to those low voltage chips with their atoms-thick insulating gates. Poof!

the serious answer from SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious why anonymity is necessary for free speech? Serious question.

Here's the Supreme Court's explanation of why anonymity is necessary for free speech: "Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

Re:the serious answer from SCOTUS

[clong83]

Thank you. If that is how they ruled, I accept that anonymity is implied in the 1st amendment.

Do you have a link to that case?

Whole thing is STUPID.

[bussdriver]

Just make me pay when I get new plates. I have to get new plates every X years anyhow. AT LEAST make a special plate for people who pay it all upfront in advance. I should get a discount of all that overhead when I pay upfront.

Too expensive? opt out and pay more because of the processing fees for the stickers. Or they could offer a financing option to pay upfront... for a small fee.

Frankly, I don't see why my car isn't registered with the IRS and they just tax me on it - if I don't use it or junk it, I just tell the DMV and it gets removed... But no, we can't allow integration or anything that makes life easier! We must make people hate government and offer private experts to help us manage the BS...

Re:Whole thing is STUPID.

[AC-x]

Just make me pay when I get new plates. I have to get new plates every X years anyhow

But this is the thing I don't get, because you wouldn't need new plates at all if they weren't used for tax purposes (UK/European plates generally last the lifetime of the vehicle). It seems so wasteful to throw perfectly good stamped metal plates away when you could just use a little piece of paper to show your vehicle is taxed.

little brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Cory Doctorow

Globalist Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Discussed on talk radio yesterday, as one caller explained this is the precursor to giving citizens mileage limits and charging a fee for going over your allotted mileage.

Can you say Agenda 21?

Keep us in our little pockets, limit travel through cost, force us onto their trains and CLOSE THE MOUNTAINS* to human activity ...I say BULLSHIT and time to stop this nonsense ... take back the government, now!

*Search Frogs and Toads if you don't know already.

I like being able to forget to pay my tags

[drmario]

These things will probably flash red if you owe the state money. I def don't want these on my car.. Having flashing red pull me over I was speeding.