Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Departments Using Car Tracking Database Sworn To Secrecy

Posted by timothy on from the you-swear-not-to-reveal-the-swearing-in dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Vigilant Solutions maintains what they claim is the nation's largest database of license-plate tracking data, 'LEARN' (Law Enforcement Archival and Reporting Network). But when a law enforcement agency signs up to use the database, they are sworn to keep it secret. The reason? They are quite clear about that: 'to prohibit users from cooperating with any media outlet to bring attention to LEARN or LEARN-NVLS.' So, they're tracking you (they're tracking everybody)... but they don't want you to know. The agreement, uncovered by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, states: You shall not create, publish, distribute, or permit any written, electronically transmitted or other form of publicity material that makes reference to LEARN or this Agreement without first submitting the material to LEARN-NVLS and receiving written consent from LEARN-NVLS. This prohibition is specifically intended to prohibit users from cooperating with any media outlet to bring attention to LEARN or LEARN-NVLS. Breach this provision may result in LEARN-NVLS immediately termination of this Agreement upon notice to you."

Immediately after WIRED published the story, though, the agreement mysteriously changed. The secrecy provision is still there, but the statement that it's 'specifically intended' to prevent the media attention has vanished."

140 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Same exact issue with "stingray" cell interception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They sign extensive NDA's and "must" deny any and all usage of stingray cell phone "dummy tower" interception devices also - why?

    Probably because they have hidden legal ramifications that haven't been addressed. Why else?

  2. Hiding shady practices by stewsters · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The obvious answer is because it is probably illegal to track everyone everywhere, but as long as knowledge of this doesn't go to the court no one will know and therefore they cannot rule it illegal. That's sketchy.

    1. Re:Hiding shady practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as the cameras are in public places or with the approval of the owner of private garages, it is not illegal. It is however very unwanted by the populace, as those who have nothing to hide don't want to feel like they need to start hiding.

      While this is (hopefully) just an aggregation of public data, it can (possibly) provide the same scale of information that GPS trackers on every car would provide (at somewhat lower detail). Since a warrant is needed to GPS a car, this sort of thing has entered a legal loophole that its owners do not want closed.

    2. Re:Hiding shady practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These license plate scanners are already everywhere in my city in Virginia. At least half the police cruisers seem to have them now. I've noticed the cruisers sitting on the sides of the road at certain choke points in the highway (bridges, tunnels), just scanning every car that passes by. There also seems to be a proliferation of private companies around here scanning as well. Just the other day I was walking to my car at my university parking lot, and I noticed some unidentified civilian vehicle with scanners mounted front and back slowly driving by all the parked cars.

      It has gotten so bad, the city has hired a private company to drive around scanning every vehicle looking for people who are behind on paying their state property taxes! If your license plate shows up as a "hit" they will put a boot on your car regardless of where it happens to be. Doesn't matter if you just happen to be out getting groceries, your car is now stuck there until you settle your tax debt. Better call a taxi.

    3. Re:Hiding shady practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's perfectly legal to track vehicles on PUBLIC roads. Don't like it build (and pay for) your own road network.

      Wrong.

      In the US, anyway, government entities are supposed to get a warrant before they can attach a surreptitious GPS tracker to any car, even one used solely on public roads.

    4. Re:Hiding shady practices by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Just the other day I was walking to my car at my university parking lot, and I noticed some unidentified civilian vehicle with scanners mounted front and back slowly driving by all the parked cars.

      That's probably the parking authority company your university contracted to make sure people are paying for their parking spots. Of course, such a vehicle should be marked as from said company.

    5. Re: Hiding shady practices by countach · · Score: 1

      If everyone knew these cameras are around probably people would start shooting them and vandalizing them.

    6. Re:Hiding shady practices by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      The obvious answer is because it is probably illegal to track everyone everywhere, but as long as knowledge of this doesn't go to the court no one will know and therefore they cannot rule it illegal. That's sketchy.

      It is VERY illegal in my state for Law Enforcement to even look up a license plate without probable cause of at least a traffic infraction.

      And yes, LEOs have gotten in serious trouble for it. They are required by law to log their requests for information, with a reason for the request.

      And by the way, in case you were wondering: no, license plates and owner information are not a matter of public record here. They are protected by law.

    7. Re:Hiding shady practices by LifesABeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With respect to evidence in the state of California, if ALL, and I mean ALL evidence that the state/county have is not made available, then the Defendent can move for a Mistrial.

    8. Re: Hiding shady practices by plover · · Score: 1

      As they're mounted onto police cars, I doubt that most people are inclined to vandalize them.

      These are camera systems that read license plates of every vehicle the cop passes (or that passes the cop). They pop up a note to the officer: "REVOKED LICENSE" "EXPIRED PLATE" "STOLEN VEHICLE", etc. The officer can then decide what course of action to take.

      --
      John
    9. Re:Hiding shady practices by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you have proof they are terrorists then have a trial and lock them up. if you don't have proof then you are just guessing, and nobody should be locked up because of that.

    10. Re:Hiding shady practices by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a significant difference between "notify" and "track". The primary purpose of these systems is to identify every license plate, look up any violations, and alert the officer. You won't be flagged in the database if you aren't already in trouble for something else.

      Regarding tracking, that's a different problem. Our state has a law that prohibits the police from retaining the data for more than two days. They are not permitted to build up a database of my comings and goings. Two days gives them enough leeway to search for "hot" problems, such as an amber alert, or fleeing felon.

      It may not be a technically perfect solution to privacy, and could be subject to abuse, but I think it's a workable compromise.

      --
      John
    11. Re:Hiding shady practices by gerardrj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are going to detain people under the laws of the United States then those people should have all the protections of the laws of the United States. Equality under the law is a core principle.

      The people in Guantanamo are not terrorists. They are accused terrorists. Send them to the international criminal court for proper trial.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    12. Re:Hiding shady practices by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      They aren't looking up the owner info, just keeping track of where the license plates are seen.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    13. Re:Hiding shady practices by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      reply to undo moderation...

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    14. Re:Hiding shady practices by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal to track vehicles on PUBLIC roads. Don't like it build (and pay for) your own road network.

      Yeah, I'll get right on that...

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    15. Re:Hiding shady practices by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Question regarding that data retention law. You specifically state that the police are prohibited from retaining data for more than two days or building up a database of an individual's locations.

      Are private companies also prohibited as such? And if not, are the police prohibited from working with such private companies?

      Just wondering.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    16. Re:Hiding shady practices by hink · · Score: 2

      What the hell does license plate tracking have to do with suspected terrorists in Gitmo?

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    17. Re:Hiding shady practices by hink · · Score: 1

      BINGO - private companies can store things for any "business purpose". They should just go commercial and sell a list of people who regularly drive around Wal-Mart to the Target marketing department for "directed marketing coupons". BTW, see the comment below this one about the guy from Florida being "flagged" by the Maryland State Police because he had a CCW permit in another state. No warrants, no record.

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    18. Re:Hiding shady practices by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something like that is part of the federal rules of civil procedure, as well as those of most if not all states. Unfortunately it is up to the judge to enforce and many judges simply won't, unless the prosecution has done something to piss him or her off. Collusion between cops, prosecutors, and judges is very common, as in the end they all work for the same system and have much to gain and little to lose by cooperating.

      --

      Nonaggression works!
    19. Re:Hiding shady practices by turp182 · · Score: 1

      That's what I figured, and I am reading about the Floridian in Maryland. Scary.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    20. Re:Hiding shady practices by hink · · Score: 1

      Not every state is like that. Must be nice.
      Maryland is one example of a state where the police run tags at a whim. They used to call it in to dispatch, then they got portable terminals in their cars. On officer I know boasted of how well he could touch type a license plate number into his terminal. Then he got a laptop, and had to relearn how to type.
      Many states have plate scanners so the officer doesn't have to take their hands off the wheel.

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    21. Re:Hiding shady practices by plover · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, this is a limit on police only, and not on private parties.

      --
      John
    22. Re: Hiding shady practices by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      That's random vandalism, not a protest. If you don't want to be tracked by cellular, don't have a cell phone (works for RMS). That sounds more like what you (used to?) see in rural areas, where road signs and utility pole insulators were used for target practice.

    23. Re:Hiding shady practices by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if the judges enforce it. If the prosecutor presents the evidence about license plate tracking then there is no mistrial. Nobody in the media will get dare get upset about a criminal being tracked, and they'll overlook that it's also used on the vast majority of the populace that aren't criminals.

    24. Re:Hiding shady practices by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It is VERY illegal in my state

      Which state?

      As an aside, and not particularly directed at you, I wish people would identify the state or country when they say "my state" or "my country".

      illegal ... to even look up a license plate without probable cause of at least a traffic infraction

      That's good, but maybe not as much of a protection as you think. A cop can always pull anybody over for a traffic infraction. Even if it's totally bogus, the cop can just let you go with a warning.

      Also, who knows whether LEO's have illegally accessed plate information? What safeguards are there?

    25. Re:Hiding shady practices by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      As long as the cameras are in public places or with the approval of the owner of private garages, it is not illegal.

      If I follow you around all day every day with a camera, recording your every move, I can and will be charged with something. Probably stalking or harassment.

    26. Re:Hiding shady practices by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      You won't be flagged in the database if you aren't already in trouble for something else.

      Are you sure about that? With the contractually-enforced anti-transparency provisions baked into these agreements with various police agencies, how would you even know? By design, the gov't is FORBIDDEN from discussing any of it with us serfs.

    27. Re:Hiding shady practices by chihowa · · Score: 1

      As an aside, and not particularly directed at you, I wish people would identify the state or country when they say "my state" or "my country".

      I do too, but I don't think (most) people are doing it by accident or neglect. I think it's a more credible sounding way of pulling facts out of their ass and they're afraid of being called out as wrong if they give enough details to verify them.

      I have no idea if that's true in this particular case, because a quick search shows that license plate information is only a matter of public records in 38 states, but in many cases it clearly is. I love the long back-and-forth arguments where "my state" or "my country" is continually referred to as a point of rebuttal but never identified.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    28. Re:Hiding shady practices by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not really, no. It's called stalking.

      It's only 'legal' in the sense that the law doesn't apply to police or sufficiently large corporations, especially those that the police like.

    29. Re:Hiding shady practices by sjames · · Score: 1

      In any sane and fair legal system, the courts would understand that anything the police hire a company to do is legally something the police are doing. Thus, it would be illegal for them to do business with such a company.

    30. Re:Hiding shady practices by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

      Just the other day I was walking to my car at my university parking lot, and I noticed some unidentified civilian vehicle with scanners mounted front and back slowly driving by all the parked cars.

      Probably the repo men, scanning to find vehicles to reposess.
      http://betaboston.com/news/201...

      Of course, they share their info with the police, too.
      http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/ot...

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    31. Re:Hiding shady practices by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Our state has a law that prohibits the police from retaining the data for more than two days.

      And your state law does absolutely nothing to protect you from tracking -- the police aren't the ones retaining all this data and tracking you. LEARN (a private corporation) is. The police get the same end result as if they were compiling and using a tracking database while at the same time staying within the bounds of the law that is intending to stop them from doing just that.

    32. Re:Hiding shady practices by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      In the US, anyway, government entities are supposed to get a warrant before they can attach a surreptitious GPS tracker to any car, even one used solely on public roads.

      This has not been decided in court, so it's hard to say it as a matter of fact. The famous GPS tracking case I think you're referring to said that that particular GPS device placement was illegal because the cops trespassed to place it. If they had place it while you are, say, parked on a public street then that court ruling would not apply.

    33. Re:Hiding shady practices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everyone has something to hide. Many somethings.
      For example, you don't want everyone knowing your PIN, credit card information, biometrics, or what medication you may or may not be on. These are all things that can be used by "shady people", often 'legally', as leverage against you.

      Nor do you announce what path your children take to walk from school every evening either. Anyone doing that openly would be seen as just begging a random creep to do something about it, right?

      Perhaps the most disturbing, though, is the ability to abuse this tracking by the authorities (which no one must forget are as fallible as any other person in the rare occasion where they aren't corrupt as well; it's just more difficult to force them to account for failure). Anyone that anybody within said organization does not like, or worse yet the organization as a whole (dissenters, members of opposing third parties, anyone working for a rival of a buddy's company, or any potential whistleblower) can now be framed properly: You don't need to worry about screwing up the evidence because of pesky things like alibis. You know exactly where they were, when they were where, how long they were where, and how they got there where, and can 'adjust' any of those values as you wish when the time will come for court.

      We all have many things to hide. We'd not be individuals if this were not the case.

    34. Re: Hiding shady practices by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      These aren't those cameras. Those ones are for registration checks (who knows about storage), but the story is about a third party commercial database which is collected any way the company wants to.

    35. Re:Hiding shady practices by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We should build our own network of citizen cameras, with automatic number plate recognition technology. Could be based on an embedded platform like the Raspberry Pi and a cheap webcam, just plug it in, connect it to the internet and go.

      The number plates recognized by these devices would be filtered against a list of known police/local government/camera operator vehicles. Plates that pass through the filter would be sent to a central server for display on a website with map, so people can see where the watchers are. It's important to watch the watchers, right? And if they are not doing anything wrong they have nothing to fear, obviously.

      See how quickly that gets shut down. I'm betting they cite terrorism as the reason.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Hiding shady practices by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      But if you have previous agreements with a large number of property owners to put up cameras in public places and use *those* to record someone's every move, you're not likely to be charged with anything (especially since setting up those agreements implies you have money, power, or both).

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    37. Re:Hiding shady practices by BigMike · · Score: 1

      Virgina's Attorney General is of the opinion is that using cameras to collect plate information is not legal unless its directly related to a criminal case. Apparently that hasn't affected the practice too much.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    38. Re:Hiding shady practices by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that you do not have the right to confront an anonymous 'informant'.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  3. Severla months ago... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I posted a story which did not get accepted about John Filippidis. A guy who had a concealed carry permit in Florida. He did own a gun, and left it at home when on a trip. Maryland police stopped him and detained him for a couple of hours for no reason.

    This was made possible be datamining efforts and automatic license scanneres.

    Very chilling.

    1. Re:Severla months ago... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Link to the story that you mention from the Tampa newspaper. Maryland police forces have a history of this kind of thuggish behavior; even now, the MD State Police and the MD press (e.g., the Baltimore Sun) refuse to comment or even report on this story.

    2. Re:Severla months ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When you drive into Maryland on the freeway, there are usually 3-4 highway patrols waiting right at the state line, just plain fishing. Never seen that in any other state..

    3. Re:Severla months ago... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The state refuses to stop spending more money each year than the last and is addicted to revenue like it's crack. According to Gallup, 67% percent of Marylanders think their state taxes are too high and 47% of them literally want to leave the state.

    4. Re:Severla months ago... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Probably more to do with a Latino appearing man with Florida plates than a gun permit. Police along the East Coast assume drug mule when they see that combination.

    5. Re:Severla months ago... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2

      RTFA. The guy had no gun in the car (he'd left it locked up in FL), but the MD cops knew he had a CCW permit even though he was a FL resident . . . how is that possible?

    6. Re:Severla months ago... by Hodr · · Score: 1

      There was a online poll this week hosted by the largest radio station for Southern Maryland, and the result was >94% would leave if they could.

    7. Re:Severla months ago... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      RTFA. The guy had no gun in the car (he'd left it locked up in FL), but the MD cops knew he had a CCW permit even though he was a FL resident . . . how is that possible?

      States sharing this information is nothing new. If you get pulled over and have an outstanding warrant from most any other state, the cops will know about that, too.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    8. Re:Severla months ago... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reading comprehension not so good, eh? He left the gun in FL at home, locked up . . . MD cops stopped him, somehow knew of his FL permit (there is absolutely no legal way they could have, of course), and ordered him to give them them the gun. When he wouldn't (couldn't) comply, they proceeded to tear the car's contents apart on the side of the highway and terrorize his family. So just maybe, it's the "batshit-crazy" behavior of jack-booted fascist states like Maryland that is the problem here.

    9. Re:Severla months ago... by richpoore · · Score: 1

      No, he didn't have the gun with him, he left it in Florida.

    10. Re:Severla months ago... by hink · · Score: 1

      Can you read? Slow down and actually look at the letters on the screen instead of using your apparent anti-gun stance to assume he was "waving the gun in the air driving down the highway".

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    11. Re:Severla months ago... by hink · · Score: 1

      They don't have enough patrol cars to pull over all the cars on the highway with that combination. They obviously ran his plate, looked at his record, which is probably clean, since he got a CCW permit. After that, would any logic suggest he was a drug mule? The police officers I know say the condition of the car and how the driver acts is more significant than if the driver is a Latino. How they are dressed factors in, too.
      The article say nothing about the driver are also usually an being questioned about drugs. It seemed like there was a very narrow focus by the police on the location of "the gun". No drug detection dogs. Nothing about drug suspicions.

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    12. Re:Severla months ago... by hink · · Score: 1

      Ugh, not sure what happened with that comment. Last paragraph should be:
      The TBO article says nothing about the driver being questioned about drugs. It seemed like there was a very narrow focus by the police on the location of "the gun". No drug detection dogs. Nothing about drug suspicions.

      --
      - speaking only for myself, as always
    13. Re:Severla months ago... by tomhath · · Score: 2

      I did RTFA. We only have one side of the story, don't know what else was asked or said.

      The reason they gave for stopping him was speeding, but only after the cop took a good look at him. It's very possible, likely even, that they knew he had a gun permit. Especially after checking his driver's license.

      But I'm guessing the reason he was stopped was so they could search for drugs or large amounts of cash. That happens all the time. His speculation that the stop was because he has a gun permit or that it was based on his plate is nothing more than that - speculation.

    14. Re:Severla months ago... by jittles · · Score: 2

      RTFA. The guy had no gun in the car (he'd left it locked up in FL), but the MD cops knew he had a CCW permit even though he was a FL resident . . . how is that possible?

      States sharing this information is nothing new. If you get pulled over and have an outstanding warrant from most any other state, the cops will know about that, too.

      Except that it is illegal for FL law enforcement to even know that you have a concealed weapons permit without a warrant. In fact, the law was specifically written to prevent the information from being shared either with law enforcement or even in civil court without a proper warrant. For civil matters the warrant must coincide with a restraining order or an expert witness declaring that you are of an unsound mind or mentally unstable (see Section 790.0601, F.S.).

    15. Re:Severla months ago... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, so you're saying it's legal for MD to automatically scan license plates, cross-check them with FL's published list of CCW permit holders, and make a traffic stop *solely* based on that info? That's what happened here, and that's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

      Florida does not publish its list of permit holders, and indeed does not even notify state law enforcement that a person holds a permit without a warrant. See Section 790.0601, F.S.

    16. Re:Severla months ago... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      RTFA. The guy had no gun in the car (he'd left it locked up in FL), but the MD cops knew he had a CCW permit even though he was a FL resident . . . how is that possible?

      From the article: "By statute, records regarding which Floridians have been issued permits are available in a searchable database to out-of-state law enforcement. "

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    17. Re:Severla months ago... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      *If* that is true -- and I'm seeing conflicting information as to whether or not it is -- expect FL to close that loophole to prevent fascist states like MD from targeting FL motorists on interstate highways. FL probably permits database access to allow for CCW reciprocity checks in other Shall-Issue states, and its legislators definitely won't allow abuse of its data by rogue police units like MDTAP.

    18. Re:Severla months ago... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      There was a online poll this week hosted by the largest radio station for Southern Maryland, and the result was >94% would leave if they could.

      Sounds like a rabble-rousing "poll".

  4. The less obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is that they don't actually respect the people they are supposed to respect (the people whom they supposedly work for). In conclusion, law enforcement doesn't work for you, even though you are forced to fund them.

  5. Give this government MORE MONEY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Obviously our government wouldn't do crap like this if only we'd tax the rich more.

    They need MORE MONEY!!!!

    1. Re:Give this government MORE MONEY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not about taxing the rich "more", it's about taxing them PROPORTIONALLY instead of almost not at all as a percentage of their incomes and wealth.

      Maybe think before you post.

  6. Paranoia by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The elites are terrified. Absolutely terrified of the middle and lower classes.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The elites are terrified. Absolutely terrified of the middle and lower classes.

      I wouldn't say terrified. They may be concerned, but they're pretty handily marginalizing us more and more each political cycle. It's pretty fascinating, actually, if you can look at it objectively. They're doing their best to push the middle class into the lower class, and cut off as much lower class assistance as possible, and they're doing it with the full and, in same cases, rabid backing of about half of those people, who believe they are doing exactly the opposite.

    2. Re:Paranoia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I thought maybe you were on to something until you mentioned cutting off the lower class assistance. Entitlements have never gone anywhere but up. It quite obviously can't go on like that, but even suggesting that discussion gets you labeled a Teabagger.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Paranoia by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Entitlements are up for the elderly (they are the rich, and they vote), but that's about it. For the poor, food stamps are cut, the minimum wage isn't keeping up with inflation, etc. They're getting the shaft.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Paranoia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Welfare" has moved to social security disability. And you are ignoring Medicare. True, food stamps are down, but that is only because the temporary bump from the bailout expired.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Paranoia by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The only people who do this are OPPOSITE_MAJOR_PARTY_THAN_THE_ONE_I_VOTE_FOR. People from PARTY_THAT_I_VOTE_FOR never do this and actually care about me and about HOT_BUTTON_ISSUE_MAJOR_PARTY_PRETENDS_TO_BELIEVE_IN_TO_GET_VOTES.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re: Paranoia by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course - my fault.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Paranoia by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, $PARTY_THAT_I_VOTE_FOR does care about $ISSUE, for at least a few values of $ISSUE. Except on a rather local level, they don't care about me. Of course, $HOT_BUTTON_ISSUE is generally so useful in literally scaring up votes to actually resolve. After all, you don't get $EVIL_GOVERNMENT_OR_BUSINESS_ACTIVITY showing up all the time, so you have to milk it for all the votes you can.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Is this news to anyone? by koan · · Score: 1

    Did you think the high def cameras at intersections and over freeways were for one purpose only?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. Re:So by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I drive on PUBLIC roads but I don't want people to know where I drive.

    It's not that I don't want random people to be able to see me; it's that I don't want my own fucking government to install surveillance equipment everywhere (or hire others to do so) in an effort to automatically track my location. Stop equating the two, you dumb shits.

    Some people really need to live in another country for a while to understand what REAL civil rights violations are like.

    The mere fact that the situation could be worse does not mean that what's happening is not bad. What terrible logic.

    What, you got punched in the face? That's not a bad thing, because starving people in Africa are much worse off!

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  9. Even more chilling by mice7943 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vigilant Solutions warehouses the data themselves and then sells it back to the consumer (in this case the local Police). To avoid ACLU issues with the Police actually handling the data they prefer to use Vigilant. Vigilant also shares this data between these organizations - so much so that going with any other system becomes pointless for the local Police. In short - one corporation having access to the location and habits of much of the country and then controlling access to that data. Chilling indeed.

    1. Re:Even more chilling by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I really detest this separation courts have setup between "private" corporations and the government. The government gives corporations their charter and is the only reason they exist in the first place. So we decide that we can't trust our elected officials with certain responsibilities, and so instead we give those same responsibilities to unelected owners. Oh, and those owners can then take that taxpayer money and funnel it right back to the elected officials in the form of legal "lobbying".

      The whole thing is batty.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Even more chilling by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      And of course it's all paid for by the taxes on the middle class. Our Betters have us paying for the class war against us. I'm not even mad. I'm just impressed.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Even more chilling by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The rich pay an outsized amount of the income tax, but these days payroll taxes pay as much into the federal coffers as income tax does. That is what is often left out of tax discussions. I think payroll tax, which is regressive, should be a much smaller part of our revenue mix.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Even more chilling by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Companies and employers are used as Fourth Amendment bypass proxies ALL THE TIME. It's pretty ridiculous. If data is aggregated about me, I am the owner of that data, not the company, and if police want to see that data I should be given notice that they want to see it and the opportunity to argue my case against it.

    5. Re:Even more chilling by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm of the opinion that when the government hires outside firms to perform governmental operations, then those firms are acting as an agent of the government and should be subject to all of the same laws, requirements, and restrictions as the government.

    6. Re:Even more chilling by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion that we should abolish the corporate tax and then, as you suggest, tax capital gains at full income tax rates. Dividends as well.

      Then, if there is any shortfall from the loss of corporate revenue, raise income taxes in the higher brackets... though I suspect that we would actually be able to lower the rate since (actual paid) corporate taxes are already so low.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  10. Looks like by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a prime target for "Anonymous"....

  11. nice try by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    "specifically intended' to prevent the media attention has vanished"
    Not on the internet it hasn't. Someone's PR department needs to learn how the internet works. They should go to Internet 101 class taught by adjust instructor, Barbara Streisand.

  12. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    - - I drive on PUBLIC roads but I don't want people to know where I drive.

      - It's not that I don't want random people to be able to see me; it's that I don't want my own fucking government to install surveillance equipment everywhere (or hire others to do so) in an effort to automatically track my location. Stop equating the two, you dumb shits.

    Exactly- there's a difference between "you're in public, so people can see where you are" and "Let's build a tracking system that tracks EVERYBODY, ALL THE TIME, and keeps the records FOREVER."

  13. Not surprising by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Companies that collect data are realizing people are starting to become more aware of what is being collected and concerned about it. If enough people start making noise Congress may start to act and limit what can be collected and how it is used.

    Here is an interesting thought for the real lawyers that read /. Could someone subpoena their data, if say they were charged with crime? Or as part of a civil suit? I would think not since they really aren't a part of the issue unless perhaps the cops used the data to locate someone or in an investigation, in which case this layman's view is the accused would have a right to see the data and challenge its use.

    Of course, if the data became public imagine the havoc it could cause. Could you see the reaction from an elected official if a reporter showed up and asked them very detailed questions about their comings and goings?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Not surprising by Mycroft-X · · Score: 1

      Could someone subpoena their data, if say they were charged with crime? Or as part of a civil suit? I would think not since they really aren't a part of the issue unless perhaps the cops used the data to locate someone or in an investigation, in which case this layman's view is the accused would have a right to see the data and challenge its use.

      Yes, if it was relied on as evidence in court. However, it wouldn't be -- see "parallel construction."

      Police, having determined something via illegal or inadmissible methods, use that information to know exactly where to look to back into an admissible method. It's the second one that gets introduced in court, the first tactic never sees the light of day (or public inquiry).

  14. Cops not complaining about secrecy! by redelm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Please note, the cops probably _like_ the "restriction": When asked, it permits them to answer "It is illegal for us to comment", or to a judge "We cannot comment without violating our contractual agreements." People forget judicial privilige overrides contract.

    As as posted by another, the use of the database could violate some data-protection law saying "access to this DB is restricted to ongoing official police investigations". Not to stalk GFs! So LAPD has to make the bogus claim that all drivers in LA are under investigation. Otherwise, their use of the tag readers tied to the tag owner DB would be illegal. And everything found thereafter excluded from evidence as "fruit of the poisoned vine". Not something they want to contemplate.

  15. Hiding your tag while on private property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it legal to hide your tag while on private property? What about privately owned, but publicly accessible property? I assume that it's legal to own a street-legal car even if it doesn't have tags, as long as its not driven on public streets. Therefore, I should be able to park my car in my driveway, hide the tag, and it would be perfectly legal. Can I do this in parking garages, or lots? If I park my car in the lot outside a shopping mall, and hide the tag, is that still legal? If it's legal, then what do you think is the likelihood that it will get towed?

    1. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Unlicensed cars on your property are almost always a code violation. If you own a track only car you are supposed to park it in the garage and _not_ work on it there.

      Because you are going to make your property a junk yard/race shop or something.

      I back them into the driveway and blatantly ignore the 'no working on cars' rule.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Only if you live in a city, for the most part. If you stop sucking off the teat of the Man and move out into the country there are no bullshit regulations like this.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by plover · · Score: 2

      In Japan, the "love hotels" supposedly have someone who will go out to the parking lot and hang black covers over the license plates, so that a spouse driving by won't spot the cheater's car.

      Apparently, that's another area where we're falling behind the Japanese.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by jittles · · Score: 1

      Is it legal to hide your tag while on private property? What about privately owned, but publicly accessible property? I assume that it's legal to own a street-legal car even if it doesn't have tags, as long as its not driven on public streets. Therefore, I should be able to park my car in my driveway, hide the tag, and it would be perfectly legal. Can I do this in parking garages, or lots? If I park my car in the lot outside a shopping mall, and hide the tag, is that still legal? If it's legal, then what do you think is the likelihood that it will get towed?

      Don't do this in California. They will tow your car right out of your driveway if they can see from the street that it does not have a license plate. It happened to my parents once, and it took a lot of legal wrangling to get the car back without paying insane fees and fines.

    5. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      The fuck? You can't work on your own car in your own garage? I'd really like to see a citation for this.

    6. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Only if you live in a city, for the most part. If you stop sucking off the teat of the Man and move out into the country there are no bullshit regulations like this.

      Are you talking about those rural areas that get higher government subsidies per capita than the cities, and then crow about being rugged individualists?

    7. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Don't do this in California. They will tow your car right out of your driveway if they can see from the street that it does not have a license plate.

      Wow, and I thought NY was a fascist state. What CA law justifies that? Around here, a car on private property needn't have any license plates, registration, or any such thing. If it's not on a public road it's not the government's business. I, and many people I know, have taken a junker to be fixed up or something, and only registered it, etc., after that was done. The only problem is neighbors who don't respect my cultural heritage as white trash. Do you think I should sue them on civil rights violations?

    8. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by jittles · · Score: 1

      Don't do this in California. They will tow your car right out of your driveway if they can see from the street that it does not have a license plate.

      Wow, and I thought NY was a fascist state. What CA law justifies that? Around here, a car on private property needn't have any license plates, registration, or any such thing. If it's not on a public road it's not the government's business. I, and many people I know, have taken a junker to be fixed up or something, and only registered it, etc., after that was done. The only problem is neighbors who don't respect my cultural heritage as white trash. Do you think I should sue them on civil rights violations?

      Vehicle registration laws in California require you to keep a car registered. If they can't see the tag, the assumption is that it is not registered. The fee for having a car that is Non-Op is (or at least was) very nominal. Just a few dollars per year. Most cities consider cars without tags to be a nuisance, and will tow them. If its in the garage, or if you're in a non-incorporated area, they usually don't really care.

    9. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Most cities consider cars without tags to be a nuisance, and will tow them.

      Off of private property, with no notification? That's still absurd. What next, they'll repaint your house and charge you through the nose for it if they don't like the color? Oh no, that's the HOA's job. HOA's are another thing we don't have around here, and I'm glad of it.

      Despite what the neighborhood Nazis and their government cronies think, your neighborhood and your town won't turn into a slum because you're fixing up an unregistered car on your property, or paint your house an ugly color. I live in what's considered a pretty decent area, at least middle middle class. There is no problem fixing a car in your yard if it doesn't have plates. I have neighbors across the street who sometimes do it with trucks. I don't mean fake trucks like pickups, but delivery van size. I know people who keep construction equipment in their yards, including somebody up the street who has a house I could never hope to afford. None of it is a problem, the houses still sell for a kings ransom, it's not a nuisance to anyone, and nobody gives a damn.

      . It's not a problem,

    10. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by jittles · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I consider it to be a problem. I grew up working on cars. I am just saying that is how it is considered. It seems to me that you should be able to keep anything you want on your property, so long as it is not a public safety hazard. But there are plenty of people who disagree. My parents live in an older home that was constructed long before the days of HOA's, too.

    11. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Is it legal to hide your tag while on private property?

      In my state, the answer to all your questions is "yes". Your car only has to display the proper tags and license plates when it is being operated on public roads and thoroughfares. If you're on private property, you don't even need a license to operate those cars, either.

    12. Re:Hiding your tag while on private property by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sacramento county. Nothing that will render the car inoperable for more then about a second. Specific examples include radiators and alternators. Allowed are batteries and putting on spare tires.

      I've changed engines, in the driveway, with no hassle. The law is an ass.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. Of course it's vanished! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Immediately after WIRED published the story, though, the agreement mysteriously changed. The secrecy provision is still there, but the statement that it's 'specifically intended' to prevent the media attention has vanished."

    It doesn't much matter anymore, now does it? :)

    1. Re:Of course it's vanished! by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't much matter anymore, now does it? :)

      It never mattered.

      It's not like we didn't all already know this was happening anyway.

  17. Bingo by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    Can't wait until some enterprising Divorce lawyer uses this data to prove the husband is having an affair or a Criminal lawyer uses it to alibi his defendant.

    All this data should be available for discovery if the Police have access to it an yes I realize that Divorce is civil.

  18. Explain to me why this is bad by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    If there is a warrant out for my arrest or a license plate is reported stolen, this system can identify it much faster than the old license plate over the radio. This seems to allow the police to stop and question people that they have a legit reason to do so, not just because you crossed the center line.

    1. Re:Explain to me why this is bad by plover · · Score: 1

      The identifying of an offender is one thing. However, once identified, it can be stored in a database and analyzed.

      This is also good and bad. If a crime is discovered after the fact, the database could be searched to narrow down a list of suspects and confirm alibis. Catching actual felons and exonerating the innocent would be a very legitimate use of the data. But if the mayor hears about a meeting of the Anti-Corrupt-Mayor's Coalition, and knows the plates of the leader's car, he can identify other cars that frequently park near the leader, wherever and whenever the leader goes somewhere. Now he knows the identities of the whole group who is opposing him, and he can target them with extra special attention.

      It gets worse, in that not everyone identified is necessarily a felon. Is failure to pay property taxes on time a felony? Is a misdemeanor possession of marijuana worthy of a traffic stop? An unpaid parking ticket?

      There need to be limits on both the acceptable uses and the storage of the data, and there need to be prosecutions of those abusing the equipment to violate the trust of the public. His Honor, the Corrupt Mayor in the example above, should go to jail. A cop who stops a car for one unpaid parking ticket should be held accountable.

      Finally, we have to decide what to do about private companies. Some bounty hunters troll shopping malls in tow trucks, looking for cars with broken leases or who have defaulted on their payments. Is this legit? According to our laws, it is. What about trolling for cars legitimately belonging people who simply owe a bank some money? If your Mercedes is paid for, should I be able to tow it away because you owe $10,000 on your Visa card?

      --
      John
  19. At least they're learning by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Problem is, what they learned is mass surveillance is OK, what's not OK is letting the sheeple know about it.

  20. Freedom of Information Law by Mansing · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry, but no Connecticut (US) municipal department can sign an agreement like that without being in violation of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. Any contract, documentation, or proposal involving a municipality is a public document.

    Too bad, so sad.

    1. Re:Freedom of Information Law by swb · · Score: 1

      This is probably true in most states with decent sunshine laws. The problem is that it's a civil, not criminal, law, and about the only entity that can prove it has been done is a state auditor.

      I would bet that even in states with good sunshine laws, most major police departments have secret agreements with vendors, some of which at the police departments request, and probably a few at the vendor's request.

      I think more should be done about this -- it should be a termination for cause for the police chief in office unless they discovered it, cancelled it immediately and publicized the fact. The contract should become null and void as it violates state law. Any vendor agreeing to such a contract shall be barred from business with the department for five years.

      The idea that the police are, in effect, engaging in secret outsourcing agreements should be repugnant.

  21. Re:Same exact issue with "stingray" cell intercept by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They learned from the best, namely criminals. If nobody talks, everybody walks.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  22. Re:So by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    I drive on PUBLIC roads but I don't want people to know where I drive.

    It's not that I don't want random people to be able to see me; it's that I don't want my own fucking government to install surveillance equipment everywhere (or hire others to do so) in an effort to automatically track my location. Stop equating the two, you dumb shits.

    On our dime, no less.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  23. Re:So by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    "Let's build a tracking system that tracks EVERYBODY, ALL THE TIME, and keeps the records FOREVER."

    And even that is better than, "and only certain people can look at the data, and certain people don't get tracked."

    It just sets us up for abuse of power, and for marginal returns on public good.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  24. This is TOTALLY okay by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    I presume since this is slashdot, home of the libertarian and capitalist freedom thinkers, we're all okay with this.

    This is a private company, not the government - so it should be totally okay. Since they're a corporation, the free market will decide if it's willing to keep them around. If nobody buys their stuff, they'll go out of business, and if you don't like what they do you can organize a boycott.

    That's how the free market works, right?
    Right?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:This is TOTALLY okay by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Government has a troubling history of using private citizens as proxy agents to do things for which they are prohibited.

      We are not OK with Google sharing or selling our data to government without court oversight. That seems to be this private companies only business model. They are effectively owned by law enforcement in all but name.

  25. Call them at 925-398-2079 to learn more by sandbagger · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sure Vigilant Solutions will be happy to talk to you.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  26. my monkey says "hi!" by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:my monkey says "hi!" by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Yeah right.

      If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide...

      If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. -- Cardinal Richilieu

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  27. Re:When you get a car you MUST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The records you mention only tell the government which vehicle you own, and where you live. This company is tracking every car, keeping records of where they were located, and when.

  28. quantity has a quality all its own by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    As has been pointed out numerous times before, things are a bit different when automation allows you to start doing things in bulk that before you could only do on a small scale.

    It's one thing for a police officer to check you tag as you drive by. It's a different kettle of fish when you have a tireless machine check every tag that passes by 24x365 and record the data so it can correlated with other electronic overseers all over town.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:quantity has a quality all its own by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Also, most countries (but apparently not the US) have civil law clauses about "reasonable expectation of privacy" that also applies to public areas. Which is why it was already illegal to do upskirt photography in most of Europe, without needing special common law judgments covering it.

    2. Re:quantity has a quality all its own by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Problem is, AFAIK there's no legal differentiation between old-fashioned tracking (which was of individuals and expensive) and modern tracking (automatic logging of all data). There's a big difference in practice.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  29. This story sounds like crap to me by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

    There's this legal principal in the U.S. called "Sovereign Immunity" having its origins in the colonial (and earlier english) law. A citizen can't sue the king without his consent, the king here having become the government.

    Suppose some P.D. did disclose the existence or the data from this database. Do you really think Vigilant Solutions is going to take them to court? Even if there was a statutory authorization permitting the P.D. to be sued, a secret corporation probably would not want their database to become publicized in a trial. Add to that that the judge probably wouldn't favor an out-of-state entity over the P.D. who keeps him safe in his bed at night. Good luck enforcing that "secret" contract provision...

    Something smells funny here ... it kind of smells like "stupidity".

    1. Re:This story sounds like crap to me by maharvey · · Score: 1

      The contract provision is not a threat. It's an excuse. Devil: I have this technology that will let you monitor everyone. Nobody will be safe! Cops: Hmm, it's kind of questionable at best, maybe illegal, and if the people get wind of it laws will be passed and I'll lose my job Devil: Ah, but you'll be so effective you'll get a promotion. And nobody will ever know. Tell you what, we'll make a contract that prohibits you from saying anything. And if you say anything, the contract is instantly voided and you're no longer a customer, there's nothing to admit. Pretty cool huh? If you tell the truth, you are lying, which is perjury in court. Hehehe. Cops: Sold!

    2. Re:This story sounds like crap to me by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

      A contract provision won't stop the police from answering during a deposition or a hearing, nor will it stop a judge from holding them in contempt of court and throwing them in jail if they refuse. That "excuse" won't hold up in court.

      Now there may be supervisors and chiefs at the police department who might try that. Of course, my experience with police staff is that they have a high school education, and have just enough legal education to recite the Miranda warnings. The stupidity that I smell may very well inside the P.D. ...

  30. Source of Income by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    As with red light cameras/speeding cameras, car tracking data can be a source of income by state/local gov't. The Feds have restricted the sale of DMV data, so governments are looking for alternatives.

  31. How About Using Public Transportation? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    If you are concerned about protecting you privacy of movement, why not use public transportation? In many places it's cheaper and more convenient than owning a car provided it goes where you want to go, has a good connections and passes near-by your residence frequently. In my town, however, public transportation is very poor and and certainly in most rural areas and smaller towns is not available. On the other hand, with all these public cameras and facial recognition technology unless you wear a mask and wig, your whereabouts at a bus stop, subway station, cab or bus can be known.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:How About Using Public Transportation? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      There are many reasons to use public transportation. Having to do it so the government doesn't track me like a criminal isn't one of those reasons.

    2. Re:How About Using Public Transportation? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Wear a burqa. I could pack my 12 gauge riot gun under one of those.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:How About Using Public Transportation? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      If you are concerned about protecting you privacy of movement, why not use public transportation? In many places it's cheaper and more convenient than owning a car.

      And in most areas, it sucks to the point of uselessness.

  32. Re:When you get a car you MUST by hink · · Score: 1

    They aren't replicating the DMV records. They are storing data and can map where your car has been driving. BIG difference. When they start giving out tickets because you "obviously" had to exceed the speed limit to be seen at intersection X and then 3 minutes later at intersection Y. Then they will question everyone the scanners saw within 1/4 mile of a murder. They might start pulling over people seen entering gun store parking lots. (Actually, they probably do that already)

    --
    - speaking only for myself, as always
  33. All hail the EFF by Powys · · Score: 1

    Seriously, in the last few months I have increasingly heard about the awesome work the EFF keeps doing. Where would be be today without them? They really could be one of the most important charities/non-profits out there right now. Please do support them in any way you can.

    (note, I am not affiliated with the EFF)

  34. Re:So by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Some people really need to live in another country for a while to understand what REAL civil rights violations are like.

    The best way to get REAL civil rights violations, as you put it, is to passively accept the more minor ones. It's boiling the frog.

  35. Re:Same exact issue with "stingray" cell intercept by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are correct. Even the Police aren't allowed to use cellular transmitters or jammers by law, they are not licensed to legally transmit on those frequencies, and they are not legally allowed to intercept telephone conversations without a warrant. Not even for "the children".

    Only the DOD (military) in the US can legally use such technology, but that isn't stopping the cops from doing whatever they want, including violating the US criminal code and defying the FCC. So naturally, they want to keep it on the down-low...

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  36. Imagine this tech during the civil rights era by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    Imagine if this technology was available during the civil rights era. The Jim Crow laws would still be in place.

  37. Re:So by X.25 · · Score: 1

    Some people really need to live in another country for a while to understand what REAL civil rights violations are like.

    List of 'another countries' in which you have lived for a while is...

  38. Re:Same exact issue with "stingray" cell intercept by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They sign extensive NDA's and "must" deny any and all usage of stingray cell phone "dummy tower" interception devices also - why?

    Yep:
    http://www.wired.com/2014/03/s...
    http://www.wired.com/2014/03/h...

    or, if you prefer your news from /., there's this
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  39. simple solution by jafac · · Score: 2

    .... develop a display panel which ONLY emits IR (not visible light).

    Mount such display panel adjacent to your license plate.
    Connect display to computer which outputs randomly-generated license plate numbers, every half second.
    Result: Scanners "see" hundreds of different plate ID's, among your own.
    Data collection foiled.
    No Laws Broken.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  40. Death Camps by MrBrklyn · · Score: 1

    I'm sick of being Tracked!!!

    Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and and extermination camps,
    but incompatible with living as a free human being.

    I feel so sorry for this younger generation. They are toast.

    --
    http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
  41. Nothing has changed; ask the folks at Playboy by kmtv · · Score: 1

    Playboy learned this lesson in the 70's and 80's. Never publish a Playmate leaning on a car with a visible license plate. The Law Enforcement Teletype System was abused horribly by police all over the country running that license plate when the new issue came out. Apparently there were bragging rights on having potential inside info on a half naked woman. The relevant agency would have to send out a plea for them to stop because they didn't have the resources to deal with all the incoming requests. Police at the time were bound by similar rules on NOT running license plates without probable cause.

  42. Not in New Hampshire by carys689 · · Score: 1

    This is not an issue in New Hampshire, supposedly the only state where license-plate tracking is illegal.

  43. Re:Hahahahahaaaahhhaaaaa by gerardrj · · Score: 1

    The parent was referring to his state's law enforcement personnel. They may well provide the scanned data to another provider, but the police themselves can't just randomly run license plates in the states I know anything about, they must have probable cause. You can, of course, debate that they can "make up" probable cause but I don't think you'll find a police officer that runs a plate without seeing something that they can cite or arrest for.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  44. Re:Severla months ago...If only that were true by cboslin · · Score: 1

    *If* that is true -- and I'm seeing conflicting information as to whether or not it is -- expect FL to close that loophole to prevent fascist states like MD from targeting FL motorists on interstate highways. FL probably permits database access to allow for CCW reciprocity checks in other Shall-Issue states, and its legislators definitely won't allow abuse of its data by rogue police units like MDTAP.

    If only that were true.

    Used to live in Florida, not any more, its gone crazy conservative Republican / Tea Party leaning with legislation and thinking. Creating a fake crisis and giving public contracts created from the uproar, to their own businesses for personal gain for example (Gov's wife owned his testing company on paper.). As such, Business interests take priority over privacy and they will *not* close that loophole as the lobbying for the businesses that feed the those political coffers will prevent it.

    Wishful thinking on your part, but alas, far from reality given the current political climate in Florida.

    Full Disclosure, I am no Democrat, they abuse the system also, just at a lesser degree than Republicans and Tea Party candidates who always abuse the system for their donors benefit. Thanks to Citizens United vs FEC and their prevention of judges getting seated (at all levels, esp Federal Courts that feed into the Supreme Court), they intend for their style of cronie-ism to continue for the foreseeable future. They want only a Republican to appoint judges.

    The Tea Party was 100% co-opted by the Koch brothers and their ilk within a month of its inception, in the beginning it was idealist and good, just quickly and easily corrupted... the news reports are there to prove it to anyone willing to look, many don't want to, they have ulterior motives. The Citizens United vs FEC court decision opened the flood gates for massive amounts of money to flood each and every election in the USA, as such most elections are controlled by those with the most money, not the best ideas anymore...thus the loophole is well funded politically.

    While there are many examples, one that readily comes to mind by its frequency in the news over the last few days are the tax cutting in Kansas and now Missouri. While Missouri's will not take effect for two years, obfuscating the true cause of the problem when it occurs in 2016, in Kansas, the promised new revenue from economic development did not materialize and they are running a deficit (tax revenue) of over $580M ($480M + 92M was reported on TV news...msnbc I believe, I watch CNN and Fox some too, but I believe that number came from MSNBC) up to $1.3B per this article (Kansas is on track for a nearly 1.3B tax shortfall this year, and in April we endured an unprecedented income drop of over 45%. That's right. The state economy lost 45% of its tax income.). Because of the deficit the Conservative state government (100% Rep controlled) did not fund the school system effectively. In fact it was so poorly funded that judges had to step in and order the state legislature to fund the schools. (this is still playing out and will be interesting to see what the Republicans say to the courts)

    In Missouri, the Gov either has or will veto the legislation, forcing them to over-ride his veto and take full responsibility for the tax cutting legislation that will hurt Missouri...Gov points to Kansas deficit as reason for his veto (Article: MO Gov. Jay Nixon points to Kansas, Shuts down Legislative Republicans) If you watch the embedded video, toward the

  45. Re:'mere fact' by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    The word "mere" has multiple meanings.

    The fact remains that using expressions without enough thought to what is said is as bad as
    enforcing laws that do not exist or breaking laws in the name of law enforcement and public
    safety.

    No, it isn't.

    That is what we began discussing, no?

    No.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...