Slashdot Mirror
Vast Surveillance Network Powered By Repo Men
v3rgEz writes "Even as some police departments curtail their use of license plate scanning technology over privacy concerns, private companies have been amassing a much larger, almost completely unregulated database that pulls in billions of scans a year, marking the exact time and location of millions of vehicles across America. The database, which is often offered to law enforcement for free, is collected by repo and towing companies eager to tap easy revenue, while the database companies then resell that data, often for as little as $25 for a plate's complete recorded history."
The life of a repo man is always intense.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yup, my SIL got picked off this way. Aparently there are cars that drive through neighborhood recording license plates, and when a license plate matches one that a repo man is looking for, the location is sent forward. She thought she was scot-free because she was living with her BF, but the car got towed anyway. Should have paid her bill...
Oh wait ...
I was talking with a bunch of folks recently, and I pointed out that consumer debt is relatively new. Sure there were layaway plans and credit with an individual store - your tab, but this huge industry that throws money out left and right to basically make us slaves.
I think many of our societies problems can go back to consumer debt: these invasions of privacy, college costs going through the roof, this treadmill of consumerism: cars, electronics, luxury goods.
All in all, things were a bit better when credit wasn't so easily available.
Before Henry Ford started financing his cars, folks had to have the cash; which made cars a luxury item. And most people had to take public transportation - which was viable because few people had cars. And of course, we wouldn't need all this oil if we didn't have so many cars.
When you sit down and think about it, consumer credit has really distorted our economy. We all have lost the need and desire to save.
what else is new
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
Which is worse, the government spying on you or business, which then sells the info, perhaps to someone who could be interested in robbing you or kidnapping your child, and using this sort of information as a resource?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The major problems I see with this is there is no oversight. How accurate are the readers? How accurate are the databases? What recourse is there when they make a mistake? That sort of thing. Without oversight there is vast potential for abuse. The various companies involved need to be licensed and regulated. There needs to be PCI-like compliance for their databases and equipment.
There are lots of other questions here. Parking lots are by and large on private property. These drivers with the scanners are utilizing the private property for profit. I mean, I can't just set up a booth in Walmart's parking lot and start selling stuff. I would need their permission, for starters, and they would probably want a lease, proof of insurance, etc, etc.
My worry is that my car will be mistaken for another car on a repo list and towed somewhere. Then it becomes a legal nighmare getting it back, with no prospect for compensation or damages.
Proverbs 21:19
Open sources scanner software that works with a cheap USB camera and license plate wiki - that stores every scanned tag with number and state data. How fast do you think it would take legislators to decide it was a bad idea and outlaw scanners? Probably a few seconds after one of their own gets asked some embarrassing questions. The best way to fight such privacy threats is to embrace and extend their use to those in power.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Well realistically the company would offer to "delete" those records in exchange for tax breaks or cash.
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
You don't have to sign a release to be recorded in public as you have no expectation of privacy. Unless a law is passed making it illegal use public images to track an individual or vehicle there is nothing to stop this sort of thing.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The horror of 1984 is the oppressive government's literal mind control. Expertise in psychology was used to manipulate the population into ever-deepening submission. Surveillance was just supposedly how the government found dissidents... though I don't actually recall any instances of surveillance being successfully used. Rather, from what I remember of the book, a good old-fashioned informant was more successful.
Surveillance is just a widespread gathering of information. What we ultimately do with that information may be good or bad, but the facts alone are neutral. Information wants to be free and all that.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If the US would get their head out of their asses and realize there needs to be things like privacy laws which dictate what information companies can collect and for what purposes, this would not be an issue.
Right now in the US, anything which restricts corporations right to act like douchebags, and collect and sell your personal information is unrestricted.
And any republican or libertarian who tells you this is fine is a sack of shit.
There's a difference between someone using their camcorder to video tape you, and a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
I don't think we need regulations that prohibit this kind of data collection by private companies or individuals (the government is a different story). Collecting data nonintrusively shouldn't be illegal, because such laws would have all sorts of nasty side effects.
Instead of restrictive regulations, we need legislation that empowers people to protect themselves from this kind of thing. For example, maybe the requirement to display a large identifying string of characters on vehicles should be rethought. We don't require people to wear identifying signs around their necks every time they venture out in the public. License plates just make this kind of data collection too easy.
If our society is unwilling to get rid of license plates entirely, perhaps we could go to electronic ones. Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Right now the playing field isn't level. Instead of leveling it by taking rights away, we should give people the ability to easily and legally protect themselves.
Or perhaps some out-of-the-box thinking would yield practical countermeasures that are already legal. Of course, then the challenge might be keeping those countermeasures from being outlawed.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
Yes, it is reasonable to say that you shouldn't expect privacy in a public setting, but this has historically been in the context of observation, not recording. The ubiquity and accessibility of modern recording devices completely alters the dynamic. Observation forgets, relinquishes and carries with it an element of humanity. Recording is cold, factual and unforgiving. This can be useful for some things (court proceedings, for example), but not everything; probably not most things.
No, you shouldn't expect privacy from individuals or the press. Yes, should be able to expect privacy from government and businesses who make recordings to be used against you.
Context is everything.
I know this is simply the stupidest, most trivial gripe anyone could make but I'm going to put it out just the same:
Back into parking spots ALWAYS. Do it for for safety. Do it for your car. Do it for convenience. Do it for 'the children.' And now, do it for privacy.
Many states do not require a license place in the front. I live in one of those states. For those who do, I'm sorry. Lobby for a change. Backing into your parking spots will reduce the likelihood that one of these scanners will record your car's location.
Backing in for safety is good to be sure the spot is clear when you enter it. You have to drive by the spot before backing in, so you know you aren't about to park in a spot occupied by a person, a motorcycle or one of those ridiculous smart cars. What's more, when you depart your parking spot, you will have the clearest possible view as you enter traffic because you don't have to back into a completely invisible and unknown situation. This also allows you to leave much more quickly since you can see where you are going. That's a great plus since quite often people are in a bigger hurry to leave than they are to arrive.
Backing in prevents people from hitting your car accidentally as you back out of parking spaces. Can you tell who is coming through that parking lane as you back out? I've seen too many cars hurt this way and it's tragic. And who has TIME to argue about it when you can just form a habit which prevents it all from happening in the first place?
Backing in means you get to leave going forward. It's not just safer, it's faster. The only potential inconvenience is access to one's trunk or rear storage area. That's probably the only exception to the rule I suppose. If you're planning to load something large, going in forward might be the best way, but it also leave you and your friends and family standing out in the parking lanes waiting for the next jerk-hole to come along and clip you needlessly.
And backing in means you have less risk of accidentally hurting a child. It's never a complete guarantee as kids just go everywhere, but can you say you did everything in your power if you aren't backing in and pulling out forward? It's when backing OUT kids are injured and killed more often. Those read-facing camera systems are really nice, especially for people who are unable to exercise full motion of their spine and neck. For for everyone else, there is no substitute for real eyes on the scene.
And now for privacy? Holy crap. Every day we learn there is yet another jerk-hole out there making money by recording and selling information about you. I wish for these people to die in a fire. They simply have no concept of what harm they are bringing to society. They just care about the dollars they can collect and spend on crap they don't need.
Seriously. Make a new habit if you don't do this already. BACK IN when parking. It's not hard. Just practice at it.
And here's the best mirror-hack of all time for backing in. Most cars these days have a passenger-side mirror and it's used to see cars which would otherwise be in a blind spot. But you don't need to see the sky with it -- just what's on the road. How about angling that mirror down a bit further so you can see more of the road. When backing into a parking spot, you will be able to see the lines of the parking spot on the other side and if you can still see the body panels of your car on that side, you can even achieve perfect alignment every time by checking if you are parallel to the line and how much room you have on the other side. There are thousand-dollar electronic sensors which serve this purpose but all anyone has to do is angle the passenger-side mirror down a little to get the same thing!!
Anyway. I hope someone actually reads this and gets something useful from it.
Last I checked, The Gubment isn't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizen's homes without Judicial Review.
Check again; Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.
Oh, I get it - you mean they haven't drone-struck (striked?) any American citizen on American soil! Well, technically, that is correct, although I recall it being discussed during the manhunt of Christopher Dorner, and in fact the President and Attorney General have already discussed the legality of such an action - they agree that it would be legal to murder US citizens without trial, on American soil.
Which means it's only a matter of time before it happens. Government types aren't likely to give up a power once they've established it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
By "this kind of thing", you mean using a camera in public, right? Is that really illegal in Europe?
In many countries, it is effectively illegal to take pictures that would compromise privacy of an individual in public. /. incredulity...
Here's a per-country summary in case you are actually interested in learning about this and aren't just spouting typical
Really there's only a right to take a picture in the US.
Of course that's how bad things would happen in America.
We have intentionally created a Federal government that is too weak to oppress anyone. This means that it is too weak to stop our neighbors from oppressing each-other, which in turn means that the Next American Dictatorship will not be based on official government powers, but rather it will be based on the government deciding not to stop ordinary Americans from oppressing each-other. It's already happened once. The rise of Jim Crow was entirely due to excessive restrictions on the Federal government's power.
There's a reason all the dystopian Sci-Fi about oppressive governments is created in the UK, where a Parliamentary Majority has legal authority to do literly anything; whereas US-created dystopias are focused on a total collapse of the government.
I have no problem with a private individual or company doing this.
I have a big problem with the government, who has the ability to deprive me of my posessions, my freedom, and my life, being able to do this.
I wonder how else a private company can work with the government to get around restrictions placed on the government?
It's not a private company, per se, but private organizations have always been the backbone of oppression in the US. In 1880, right after Reconstruction ended, South Carolina was 60% black. Then the KKK appeared and by 1930 SC was majority white. They didn't actually kill their black minority so it was more ethnic cleansing then genocide, but still. That only worked because the government was unwilling to squish them like they deserved.
Up north segregation typically had nothing to do with the government. There was no official rule that only WASPs got to live in Grosse Pointe, but if you weren't a WASP the local realtors would not tell you that they had a home in Grosse Pointe to sell. Until the government decided to squish them the "Grosse Pointe System" operated quite effectively, and most of it's victims never even knew they'd been targeted.
So do not underestimate the power a private organization to oppress you. It does not care about your Constitutional rights. It does not care that your Senator is fighting mad on your behalf. It can't shoot you, but by the same token it doesn't have to file paperwork with a Judge before sending a guy out to go through your trash.
EVERY stalking law has some phrase saying that the stalker has to terrorize the stalkee.
Well pardon me for calling that hyperbole, since I'm pretty sure you haven't read every single stalking law put on the books in 30 years overnight.
Regardless, how is "terrorize" defined? Because if a state designates "following someone around with the intent to track their movements" as terrorizing, well, you're on the wrong side of the law.
Walking around on public property is not terrorizing. Even if you're watching one person all the time.
Public property is ... wait for it ... open to the public.
Yea, you've thrown that non sequitur out several times.
We're not talking about "walking around," we're talking about following someone. And if "following someone" falls into the local, legal definition of stalking and/or harassment, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of the law. It's not black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be, but if you disagree, here's an experiment - go to the nearest high school, wait until school lets out, pick a target of the opposite sex, and proceed to follow them around, photographing them and keeping track of their locations. After all, it's perfectly legal, right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese