"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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.