DEA Cameras Tracking Hundreds of Millions of Car Journeys Across the US

itwbennett writes: A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program set up in 2008 to keep tabs on cars close to the U.S.-Mexican border has been gradually expanded nationwide and is regularly used by other law enforcement agencies in their hunt for suspects. The extent of the system, which is said to contain hundreds of millions of records on motorists and their journeys, was disclosed in documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a Freedom of Information Act request.

Comments

Cam-tastic

[JSG]

As a Brit, I'll feel right at home in the US now.

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

The fact that drugs are illegal is the true problem.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just suck it up, citizen. Think of the careers of all those DEA and other law enforcement agents! You wouldn't dare destroy those jobs, now would you?

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

Oh, the boot-stompers have families to feed too, and we should consider this? I've taken on some jobs that I later learned were not in line with my moral coder. I quit and did something else, wasn't that difficult.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just suck it up, citizen. Think of the careers of all those DEA and other law enforcement agents! You wouldn't dare destroy those jobs, now would you?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, they're suppressing the creation of jobs and an entire industry by maintaining a bullshit stance and justification for exiting positions.

DEA you want to stop heroin and meth labs? Have at it, but for fucks sake stop spending billions fighting a goddamn plant.

Re:Cam-tastic

[cayenne8]

Man, I wish someone could come up with a viable method of obstructing electronic license plate reading while leaving it readable by humans.

I'm guessing that the old thought of using high intensity infrarad LEDs to blow out the cameras doesn't work or we'd have heard more about it by now.

I don't know of laws requiring plates be readable by electronic means, otherwise they'd just have bar codes on them, no?

I'm just getting fed up with the govt. (state/feds) going overboard wight he surveillance. I mean, where in the constitution is it ok for them to do this to citizens that are NOT under investigation, nor being involved in interstate commerce?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Slashjones]

It's *one* problem, but mass surveillance would still be wrong either way.

Re:Cam-tastic

[gstoddart]

What makes you think they give a damn about the Constitution?

It's now a quaint notion, and every law enforcement agency is making the case that they shouldn't have follow that ... and until a court says otherwise and starts throwing these clowns in jail, do you really think you get a say in the matter?

The law doesn't apply to law enforcement -- which means it's only a matter of time before the outright corruption and shakedowns becomes like every other banana republic where the police can do whatever they choose.

As soon as the feds started teaching law enforcement to use parallel construction, and effectively commit perjury and bypass your Constitutional rights ... everyone was pretty much fucked, because "law enforcement" is now about what they can make stick, not what they can prove through legal means.

You now have a nascent stasi, only some people still cling to the belief that's not actually happening, or that at the very least it's for your own good and therefore OK.

Papers please, comrade -- if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Re: Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

The house I grew up in was right next door to a meth lab for some time. The neighbor converted it into a rental and in move the meth heads, and we could not sell. Surprise!

So we decided to help law enforcement get them busted. We would call whenever there were 20 or more people over and they were actively cooking meth. Strangely, the cops would just quickly stop, say one sentence like "turn the music down" or "keep up the good work" and drive off.

Months later I found out why when there was a massive bust on my front lawn. Well, sort of. The DEA sprUng their trap! They busted one guy for negligence on his 9 f-ing kids. I talked to the DEA agents and gave them as much info as I could.

The cops refused to step on the DEA's toes in this case. Had the cops just once went to the front door of the place when we called they would have busted 20 people right in the middle of meth manufacturing. But instead, they waited for the DEA to finish their sting operation. 1 guy busted for being a shitty dad raising his kids in a "suspected meth lab", because all they had on him was a whiteboard with a barely legible meth recipe and a washing machine full of syringes as proof. It was nicknamed "the syringe house" in the news!

in my experience, fuck the DEA.

Re:Cam-tastic

[AchilleTalon]

Where in the Constitution it is not ok for them to do this? After all, you are on public roads, you still can go anywhere you want. I don't see where they are violating the Constitution here.

Re:Cam-tastic

[mwvdlee]

But how else would the law enforcement industry guarentee continued profit growth?
Won't somebody please think of the corporations?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.
Other countries have the same stance on drugs and without the issues, either with drugs or over-reaching law enforcement.

Re:Cam-tastic

[dcw3]

Like it or not, the DEA is doing the job they're supposed to do. If you want them to do what you said, then get the laws changed.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Just suck it up, citizen. Think of the careers of all those DEA and other law enforcement agents! You wouldn't dare destroy those jobs, now would you?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, they're suppressing the creation of jobs and an entire industry by maintaining a bullshit stance and justification for exiting positions.

DEA you want to stop heroin and meth labs? Have at it, but for fucks sake stop spending billions fighting a goddamn plant.

Then hurry up and vote it into legality, ffs. You act as if the DEA made the laws they are tasked with enforcing.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

All this fucking spying on people in the U.S., DEA cams and NSA phone and email snooping and whatever else, and yet there is still crime. And there is still an ominous threat of terrorism everywhere.

HEY FEDS: the level at which you carry out surveillance on the people of this country is nearly all-encompassing and you still can't do shit right. What makes you think that having any more ability to spy on people is going to improve your policing abilities? You've become fascists and you're still not happy with the power you have. Some day I hope it comes back to bite you hard.

Re: Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Highly possible that they had someone inside undercover, gathering information.

Re:Cam-tastic

[cayenne8]

Where in the Constitution it is not ok for them to do this? After all, you are on public roads, you still can go anywhere you want. I don't see where they are violating the Constitution here.

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant YOU rights, those are natural. The Constitution is there to GRANT the federal govt very limited, enumerated rights. Basically it is supposed to be there to grant them rights and responsibilities, and anything NOT in the constitution is not something they are supposed to be able to do. This was the foundation for a limited, and minimally intrusive form of Federal Govt., which has been bastardized over the years, and many of us would prefer to have reigned in.

The govt is not supposed to be there to track me, nor put out a blanket dragnet of surveillance to try to find any wrongdoers out there. Especially at the Federal level. Possibly more able to at the state level, but at least on state and local level, you have a bit more recourse and influence over the local politicians than at a federal level.

Not to mention, if you don't like the rules of one state you are free to move to a more like minded state. If this is done federally and nationally, you lose that freedom.

But yes, the Constitution is there to grant very LIMITED and enumerated rights, roles and responsibilities for the federal govt. If it isn't in it the constitution, it should not be a power they have.

At least, that's the way and thought behind the construction and mandate of our govt. in the beginning.

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

Education and drug treatment is key to the drug problem, not draconian laws that jail and destroy the lives of otherwise law abiding citizens. Make all drug use legal so the cost is not prohibitive, and you will see a huge drop in crimes like burglaries and car theft and many others. Let's let Darwin's law sort out those who can't properly use them. Alcohol is a legal drug, been declared a drug by the FDA for over 30 years now. How did prohibition work out? Oh yeah, made millions for the mob and hootch runners, and didn't solve anything, later repealed. You want to be a coke/heroin/meth head? Go for it, just know how life destroying it is to you and the people around you. Want to fly a plane or drive a bus/car/taxi/ or any job that requires being sober? Be a good parent to your kids? No, of course you can't be an addict to any substance and be able to do those things. Lose your job, kids, whatever, and go live your life of addiction. The heavy drugs do own the user, this is true. That's the price to be paid for not wanting to live a decent life. But to have heavy handed laws that target citizens for personal drug use is asinine, and not productive for society. Smoke a joint, eat a brownie, shoot heroin, that's all fine. As long as no one else is affected in any negative way by your personal conduct, there's no problem except for the user.

Re:Cam-tastic

[ihtoit]

somebody did, that was quickly legislated out. Now there's a prescribed layout and texture for number plates (at least in the UK), Photoblocker, Laserveil and similar products specifically designed to defeat flash photography (ie GATSO speed cameras) are strictly illegal.

From Wikipedia, links are valid:

Number plates must be displayed in accordance with The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.

All vehicles manufactured after 1 January 1973 must display number plates of reflex-reflecting material, white at the front and yellow at the rear, with black characters. This type of reflecting plate was permitted as an option from 1968: many vehicles first registered before 1973 may therefore carry the white/yellow reflective plates and, where they were first registered during or after 1968, they may have carried such plates since new.

In addition, characters on number plates purchased from 1 September 2001 must use a mandatory typeface and conform to set specifications as to width, height, stroke, spacing, and margins. The physical characteristics of the number plates are set out in British Standard BS AU 145d, which specifies visibility, strength, and reflectivity.

Number plates with smaller characters are only permitted on imported vehicles, and then only if they do not have European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval and their construction/design cannot accommodate standard size number plates.

The industry standard size front number plate is 520 mm × 111 mm (20½" × 4"). Rear plates are either the same size, or 285 mm × 203 mm (approx 11"x8") or 533 mm × 152 mm (approx 21"x6"). There is no specified legal size for a number plate. For example, the rear number plate of a Rover 75 is 635 mm x 175 mm.

The material of UK number plates must either comply with British Standard BS AU 145d, which states BSI number plates must be marked on the plate with the BSI logo and the name and postcode of the manufacturer and the supplier of the plates or

"(b) any other relevant standard or specification recognised for use in an EEA State and which, when in use, offers a performance equivalent to that offered by a plate complying with the British Standard specification, and which, in either case, is marked with the number (or such other information as is necessary to permit identification) of that standard or specification."

as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 Number 561), Schedule 2.

Older British plates had white, grey or silver characters on a black background. This style of plate was phased out in 1972, and is now legal to be carried only on vehicles first registered before 1 January 1973. A vehicle which was first registered on or after 1 January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if it was constructed before 1 January 1973 (as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... PART IV MISCELLANEOUS).

Re:Cam-tastic

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have thought of building an LED license plate frame to mess with the cameras and others have tinkered with the idea some. The results at best could be considered hit or miss but that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved upon since most I have seen only output a few watts of power. I have been trying to figure out if I could build one with a power draw of 100-200W using some high output IR LEDs (the new license plates Minnesota uses are designed to be highly viable in the IR spectrum). Having a frame that isn't covering the license plate at all is perfectly legal in Minnesota but other things are not Minnesota statute 169.79 Subd. 7. Also the existing laws on vehicle illumination would also not prohibit this.

By frame I mean many concentric rings of LEDs packed tightly around the license plate so that you have 100 watts of IR LEDs shining around each plate. One of these days I will get some time to do it, and may also look into illuminating the front and rear windshield with IR LEDs as well in a similar fashion to further flood the image with IR.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have 100X more drug addicts and serious castle laws than give these thugs one ounce more power and authority.

Re:Cam-tastic

[ihtoit]

no, the problem is the pharmaceutical industry (in the case of opiates, which USED TO BE LEGAL) and the paper industry (WHICH USED TO BE MADE FROM HEMP) stifling competition with the weight of lobbying and propaganda - which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Re: Cam-tastic

[parkinglot777]

You need to understand that they must gather as much evidence as they can to do so. It is not as simple as catching someone or people with contraband in their house, and then put them in jail. You should know already that those people could say we don't know about this. When an operation like this is on going, I am sure that cops and DEA people have communicated and waited for the right time to deal with the issue. It may be frustrated to others around the issue, but ensuring that the criminal gets convicted is a different story...

Re:Cam-tastic

[jpapon]

The Constitution is there to GRANT the federal govt very limited, enumerated rights.

This is not really true. The Bill of Rights is a list of things that the government specifically cannot do. It would not be necessary if the Constitution didn't grant the federal government some pretty broad powers (such as the power to make and enforce laws).

Re:Cam-tastic

[Chris Mattern]

no, the problem is the pharmaceutical industry (in the case of opiates, which USED TO BE LEGAL

And when they were legal, the pharmaceutical industry sold them. Made a tidy amount of money at it, too. Why would they want to ban them?

the paper industry (WHICH USED TO BE MADE FROM HEMP)

Well, no, at least in the larger sense. There are a few isolated documented cases of making paper from hemp, but for the most part, mass production of paper has always been from wood pulp. I've heard that processing hemp into paper is actually more expensive than using wood pulp, but I can't verify that.

Re:Cam-tastic

[swb]

Do you think some kind of IR strobe would work? Strobing fast enough to keep the auto-contrast/brightness from being able to keep up?

I also wonder if you couldn't borrow some of the technology from those laser light shows where they can "draw" on the side of a large object. I wonder if its possible to adapt the scanner technology to basically "paint" an object behind you with IR illumination

The only thing I would worry about is if any/many squads have IR cameras linked to displays visible within the squad car. The guy whose car is lit up in IR like Las Vegas is gonna get pulled over and harassed no matter what, and unless your build is so clean it can't be detected and can be easily and transparently disabled, they will drum up some kind of "defeating law enforcement technology" charge against you.

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

At the time, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and his rich pals created a dis-information campaign against hemp, demonizing it as a real threat to society, when in fact they themselves felt their paper companies were threatened by the possibility of hemp taking over. Today we still live under the laws created then, and are burdened by them.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Penguinisto]

One state at a time. Once all states (or at least a majority) have it legal, then the feds will have to either re-evaluate, or double-down on their stance. Considering that the foundation for the relevant laws are tenuous at best, they'll become pretty much useless anyway.

(I live in Oregon... come July, it'll be perfectly legal here. It's already legal for all uses just over the river in Washington. I don't partake, and haven't for 23 years; OTOH, my wife has a medical license, and it works far better for her than the Oxycodone did. After seeing the improvements it's made in her life, well, the DEA can go fuck itself.)

Re:Cam-tastic

[ihtoit]

pretty much every public document printed before ~1893 was printed on vellum (animal hide) or hemp (and 90% of all paper sold up that point was made from hemp fibre). Statutes in the UK are actually still printed for archive on vellum. Galideo wrote on hemp. The first two drafts of the US Declaration of Independence were written on hemp, the copy that was signed was parchment.

Simply put, wood pulp paper needs some pretty nasty chemicals to process, that weren't available 100-odd years ago. Hemp? A shredder, a bottle of bleach (if you want white instead of yelow/green) and a press, that's it.

Re:Cam-tastic

[ihtoit]

oh, and up until 1928 paper money in England was almost exclusively hemp fibre, then the Bradbury was issued in 1914 which was a hemp/cotton mix. These days it's a mix of wood pulp, cotton and flax.

Re:Cam-tastic

[blue trane]

But they don't have to break the spirit of the laws against unreasonable search and seizure, they shouldn't profile, and they shouldn't selectively enforce (HSBC money-laundered drug money, they were slapped on the wrist).

I'm reminded of the Dave Chappelle sketch about what would happen if drug dealers were treated like Wall Street criminals. Tron, testifying before Congress, takes the "fizzith" amendment to every question and gets off scot-free.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Ichijo]

The govt is not supposed to be there to track me

Are you a car? I know that cars are getting smarter, but this is ridiculous!

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they kind of did, since the AG controls the scheduling of drugs and bases this schedule on DEA input.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Immerman]

The government only has the right to make and enforce those laws Necessary and Proper to the execution of the powers given to it in the constitution.

As for the bill of rights, that was added later as a second line of defense to address some people's concerns that the government might try to expand beyond the powers granted to it. The 9th and 10th amendments made this fairly explicit:

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re: Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Your broke aren't you?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

They were selling license plate covers in New York that did pretty much that (some kind of infrared/directional filter I believe), but then the governor had some big press conference touting how they were "helping the terrorists" and got it outlawed. If they even make them anymore they still might be available but you might want to check your local laws.

Re:Cam-tastic

[anagama]

No, the Constitution is not an enumeration of rights you have left, it _is_ an enumeration of the rights the Feds have:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would be very wary of strobing the lights for a number of reasons. the first is that depending on the frequency it may violate laws in my state (60-120 Hz). Second, strobing IR is also used to trigger the lights for emergency vehicles and people have gotten in trouble for that and that seems like a great way to cause all sorts of unintended problems. Finally if you wanted to mess with the cameras you would need to be fairly exact in you timing.

That said having one be photo triggered would be doable but requires additional electronics. So given all that simply having a very bright ring around a substantially darker area would seem to be the easiest and unquestionably legal. The goal is to simply make it so the automated plate scanner fails to identify you plate and by massively overexposing one area so the rest is massively underexposed seems the easiest. The trick is to put out enough power in a large enough area to do it. I want a large area but that large area needs to be really bright so the camera automatically tries to correctly balance the picture. It isn't like 200 watts is a large portion of power the vehicle puts out of it's 100+ kilowatt engine.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not really true. The Bill of Rights is a list of things that the government specifically cannot do. It would not be necessary if the Constitution didn't grant the federal government some pretty broad powers (such as the power to make and enforce laws).

Premonitions of the misunderstanding you've just demonstrated were the leading objection to even having a bill of rights.

However that argument lost out to the belief that no matter what, over time "scope creep" would end up creating the same mis-interpretation anyway, so better to build an imperfect bulwark than to just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

Sprays that obscure license plates from plate readers have been illegal to use in many states for some time now, I'd say anything that obfuscates readers would fall into this category (including the black plastic dealer frames for which you can be ticketed for).

Re: Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

No, why? You need a few bucks?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Bob the Super Hamste]

True but the whole purpose of this is to be complaint with the law. No part of the plate would be physically covered by the frame. The Minnesota law clearly states that it has to be a physical covering which this is neither physical nor covering.

Re: Cam-tastic

[deadweight]

This can be good for the police to map out all the buyers and suppliers over time. It can be an utter nightmare for the neighbors with the crime and violence that the police do nothing to stop in the short run. I knew of a situation like this some years ago where the neighbors took to burning whatever cars the dealers managed to buy until they got a clue and left.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Atrox666]

The fact that the populace tolerates government interference in their personal decisions is the problem.
The government has no legitimate right to decide what I can do with my body unless it's directly harming someone else.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it doesn't matter. The damage has been done with regards to case law. All the related laws (no-knock searches, civil forfeiture, etc.) have been codified so the original arguments used to justify them are just a curio, even if they no longer apply.

I mean hell, even if we got peace on earth tomorrow, do you think the NSA would quit monitoring? And all it takes are claims that marijuana is being used as a front for other drugs before we are right back on track to a kinder and gentler police state.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think it is unconstitutional, then wouldn't it be logical for you to argue that court? Or are you just a professional armchair-quarterback?

Here on Slashdot, I see lots of vehement opposition to these kind of things, and I find it funny that the most any of you actually do about it is complain. Can't you people think of any other actions you can take that would be more effective?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I am! All those poor agents put out of work by the cameras because they used to, you know, do stakeouts and stuff, and monitor traffic with real eyeballs, not technology.

BAN the cameras at once, won't you think of the agents (and their children)!

Re: Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Your broke aren't you?

His broke is him? ?

Re:Cam-tastic

[ganjadude]

other countries were forced to have the same views as us otherwise there is hell to pay for countries who are soft on drugs. be it withholding aid, or actually starting a coup to get in more hardline leadership. by hardline i mean will follow the drugs are bad mm'kay mantra

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Oregon... come July, it'll be perfectly legal here. It's already legal for all uses just over the river in Washington.

Is Oregon also outlawing pre-employment drug screening for THC?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American I will forgive you this once for getting the constitution all wrong.

The Constitution does not GRANT ME rights, those are natural.

The Constitution does LIMIT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT rights in a very limited, enumerated way.

Anything NOT in the Constitution can be found in various but also limited amendments.

This is in at least 4th grade through 12th grade education in the USA.

Understanding this is akin to understanding why the federal government today as a body seems to believe anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution or its amendments is fair game and that they can do no wrong.

The surveillance state is a prime example of this kind of out of line thinking. It is very blatantly and clearly stated in the constitution that the government has no business prying into the private business and correspondence of law abiding citizens for any reason, but since it does not explicitly talk about the internet the federal government treats the medium like a free for all zone where they can do no wrong.

Re:Cam-tastic

[cayenne8]

I was only referring to the US, being that the data tracking in the article was with reference to the US governmental agencies.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Casper0082]

My money is on the law staying the way it is. They can "choose" not to enforce it, but still have the option to arrest you if they would like. I doubt they would give up that option as it produces control over normal people.

Re:Cam-tastic

[d34thm0nk3y]

Legal Marijuana Is The Fastest-Growing Industry In The U.S. ...

Re:Cam-tastic

[sjames]

Because there are much more profitable patented drugs now.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, the Czech Republic, et. al. have really been whipped into shape by this magic "force" you claim results in "hell to pay".

For god's sake, do some simple google searches before you spout off on slashdot. Not everywhere is as bass-ackwards as the USA.

There are countries who view drug abuse as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Those countries have shown some of the most progress is dealing with these issues.

Re:Cam-tastic

[ganjadude]

yes, you have some truth with that, but look at this disaster that is mexico and columbia, at the hands of the US policy

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Silicon Valley.

When I first moved here, I was surprised and bothered by the massive amount of cars with no license plate. What they do is leave the dealer plate on (it says DGDG.com, and nothing else). They leave this plate on, indefinitely.

The more I saw, the more I looked into it. Finally I found out it's a trick everybody does to avoid paying tolls on the bay bridge, or the other toll bridges. What's disturbing is that nobody, ever, is pulled over and ticketed for it. I've lived here for two years and I've seen a car pulled over ONE time, and he had a plate so it was probably for speeding.

My point it, why bother with high tech solutions? Just move to the bay area, and get rid of your plate. Nobody will ever notice or care. Of course, I'm probably being tracked by a hundred other technologies that I can't see here. ;)

Re:Cam-tastic

[omnichad]

stop spending billions fighting a goddamn plant.

You mean opium?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, it's not like these drugs aren't illegal anywhere else. (Heavy Sarcasm)

Listen moron, these drugs that are illegal in the USA are also illegal in most of the world outside the USA, many drugs you can buy over the counter here are illegal in other countries!

Re:Cam-tastic

[Gr8Apes]

Incorrect - the Bill of Rights were a list of rights that should not be abridged. Numbers 9 and 10 were there to reinforce that the feds were limited strictly to what was in that 10K word document.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that memo from the department of the obvious, captain!

Re:Cam-tastic

[Nerrd]

uh, we don't fight opium production. If anything we support it. Haven't you seen the statistics on Afghanistan?

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but reversed. The Bill of Rights is a list of things that every human being can do, unimpeded by government. Every American citizen is allowed, simply by their very being, to speak freely, own the means to protect themselves, etc.

They are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but not created or granted by the Bill.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Penguinisto]

Is Oregon also outlawing pre-employment drug screening for THC?

Doesn't matter - she doesn't work, I do.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, the DEA is doing the job they're supposed to do. If you want them to do what you said, then get the laws changed.

No they aren't.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we are locked into literally dozens of international treaties over drug laws. We cant change the laws at the federal level in the United States without causing a conflict with those international treaties that we signed. And these are major treaties for things like allowing our military to operate autonomously in a foreign country specifically for drug interdiction. The truth is that the drugs were the excuse to get our military in to their country. If we legalize marijuana at the federal level the only way we could do that would be to withdraw from those treaties which would then require a withdrawal of all military assets that are authorized by those treaties. Including and up to abandonment of military installations. Of course we can renegotiate those treaties but if the reason for the military being there was drug interdiction, and drugs are now legal, for what reason is the military required in that foreign country now? Which then opens the door for questions the US government definitely does not want to be asked when you no longer have the excuse of drugs to point to.

Re:Cam-tastic

[kogut]

The fact that drugs are illegal is the true problem.

It's a problem. But making them legal trades one set of problems in for another set of problems. Countries that have tried legalization in various ways aren't what I'd call "problem-free."

Re:Cam-tastic

[kogut]

No they aren't.

That's an issue with "how," not "what."

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

or alcohol. You can't even distill your own, and it's been how many years since prohibition? It's time for the nanny state to pack its bags.

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

The fact that drugs are illegal is the true problem.

It's a problem. But making them legal trades one set of problems in for another set of problems. Countries that have tried legalization in various ways aren't what I'd call "problem-free."

True. Legalizing takes drug gangs out of the equation, lowers crime rates, and makes addiction less of a stigma and more of a treatable health problem. Take all the unemployed police, prison guards and lawyers legalization would bring and train them to be drug counselors. Turn the empty jails into factories. Then celebrate freedom of choice.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

... she doesn't work, I do.

She stores her drugs in your home? If so, the police can steal your home under civil forfeiture laws. Better hope Eric Holder doesn't change his mind about relaxing that law . Of course, the state can enforce it anyway. Yes, that's unlikely to happen given they are about to legalize it. Sick people in other states aren't as lucky.

Re:Cam-tastic

[kogut]

True. Legalizing takes drug gangs out of the equation, lowers crime rates, and makes addiction less of a stigma and more of a treatable health problem. Take all the unemployed police, prison guards and lawyers legalization would bring and train them to be drug counselors. Turn the empty jails into factories. Then celebrate freedom of choice.

I'd hope so. I'd sign up for that. But it approaches the unicorns and rainbows plan. Legalizing also tends to make things lower cost. And when something costs less is more easily available, there are upward pessures on demand and usage. Also drugs gangs don't magically disappear with legalization. They have a vested interest in preserving market share. I'm speaking using mostly anecdotal evidence, but the drug gangs have not at all disappeared from the states that have effectively legalized marijuana. They welcome the increased demand. It's not even clear if they're actually opposed to legalization.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

... takes the "fizzith" amendment to every question ...

What I remember about the senate inquiry, is the argument of Standard & Poor, plus Moody's: The companies that falsified the default risk of CDOs, allowing pension funds to buy crap and AIG to offer income insurance on the same crap. Those companies claimed nothing they promised was objectively true or false.

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

The waron drugs is a colossal failure, but like a mental patient banging his head against a wall hoping the pain will stop, we keep fighting the un-winnable war. I just googled "Would making all drugs legal be bad?" and found lots of links, this is from one...

When the drug-drenched nation (of Portugal) legalized all drugs within its borders, most critics predicted disaster. Instead drug use has plunged dramatically.

Drug related deaths fell by 50%

The government in Portugal has no plans to back down. Although the Netherlands is the European country most associated with liberal drug laws, it has already been ten years since Portugal became the first European nation to take the brave step of decriminalizing possession of all drugs within its borders—from marijuana to heroin, and everything in between. This controversial move went into effect in June of 2001, in response to the country’s spiraling HIV/AIDS statistics. While many critics in the poor and largely conservative country attacked the sea change in drug policy, fearing it would lead to drug tourism while simultaneously worsening the country’s already shockingly high rate of hard drug use, a report published in 2009 by the Cato Institute tells a different story. Glenn Greenwald, the attorney and author who conducted the research, told Time: “Judging by every metric, drug decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country."

Back in 2001, Portugal had the highest rate of HIV among injecting drug users in the European Union—an incredible 2,000 new cases a year, in a country with a population of just 10 million. Despite the predictable controversy the move stirred up at home and abroad, the Portuguese government felt there was no other way they could effectively quell this ballooning problem. While here in the U.S. calls for full drug decriminalization are still dismissed as something of a fringe concern, the Portuguese decided to do it, and have been quietly getting on with it now for a decade. Surprisingly, most credible reports appear to show that decriminalization has been a staggering success.

The DEA sees it a bit differently. Portugal, they say, was a disaster, with heroin and HIV rates out of control. "Portugal's addict population and the problems that go along with addiction continue to increase," the DEA maintains. "In an effort to reduce the number of addicts in the prison system, the Portuguese government has an enacted some radical policies in the last few years with the eventual decriminalization of all illicit drugs in July of 2001."

However, as Greenwald concludes: "By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts." Under the perfect system, treatment would also be voluntary, but as an alternative to jail, mandatory treatment save money. But for now, "the majority of EU states have rates that are double and triple the rate for post-decriminalization Portugal," Greenwald says.

http://www.thefix.com/content/...

http://content.time.com/time/h...

http://www.bmstahoe.com/Drugs/

The last link is "Twelve reasons why drugs should be legalized", and seems to be a well written explanation. Drug users know how to get drugs and always will. So let them, as long as they're only harming themselves, where is the problem?

Re:Cam-tastic

[kogut]

The waron drugs is a colossal failure,

Oh, I totally agree. Just pointing out that a little caution is in order. Doing the opposite of something that failed does not necessarily gaurantee success.

And Portugal isn't exactly a golden model.

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."

Re:Cam-tastic

[SternisheFan]

From your link: "We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."

So let's be daring and take a chance and at least decriminalize possession and stop making criminals out of our kids. (And remember, alcohol is the most destructive drug on the planet.)

http://ithp.org/articles/alcoh...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH...

Re:Cam-tastic

[Sardaukar86]

Beautifully said. If people in general held this attitude the War On Some Drugs would collapse like a wave on the shore.

If people held a similar attitude to life in general we wouldn't be dealing with fun problems like Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIS, to name a few obvious parties.

It seems we get the society we deserve.

Re: Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope everyone recognizes this as a states rights issue then. The states probably operate these cameras though.

Also, good luck arguing that the power to use a machine to do what a man in a lawn chair with notepad could do needs to be enumerated anymore than the power to breath air.

All you can do is try to get a new law passed, this isn't remotely a constitutional issue.

Re: Cam-tastic

[anagama]

A man in a lawn chair can record hundreds of license plates per second? Are you seriously saying such a ridiculous thing?

As for the differing states, one would at least be able to choose to live in one with good policies.

Re: Cam-tastic

[anagama]

http://elsag.com/mobile.htm

1800 license plates per minute, monitor 4 lanes of traffic at once -- yeah, show me the man in a lawnchair who can do that.

Re:Cam-tastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, the DEA is doing the job they're supposed to do
Thier job is not to track anf trace where I go and what I do unless THEY HAVE A WARRENT! Tracking me down the freeway IS NOT THEIR JOB. I don't sell drugs.

They are breaking the law. Changing it will do no good.

Re:Cam-tastic

[eric_harris_76]

Like it or not, the DEA is doing the job they're supposed to do. If you want them to do what you said, then get the laws changed.

Oh. I didn't know.

I'll get on that right away.

Honestly, I had no idea it was that easy.

Are they using Waze?

[gatkinso]

Had to ask.

Re:Are they using Waze?

[camg188]

Funny that 8 articles before this one was "Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App".

What's good for the goose...

Re:Are they using Waze?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the joke. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re:Are they using Waze?

[gatkinso]

"Woosh"

Re:Are they using Waze?

[dcw3]

Yes actually, thanks for pointing it out. When I come to /., I normally read the articles from top down, so the "joke" didn't make sense at first.

Preposterous

[rmdingler]

The article seems to be implying a law enforcement arm of the U.S. Gov't has expanded surveillance above and beyond what was initially authorized.

It seems certain if that if this were the case, in a representative democracy, someone's already scheduling a Congressional hearing to sort this out.

Crap! It's Superbowl week and the Congresscritters are busy commenting on some quarterback's balls.

Re:Preposterous

[Anonymous Coward]

If I see another "inflategate" story headlining the news I'm going to puke.
Here's a heads up for the news media: nobody gives a shit.

Re:Preposterous

[Anonymous Coward]

"Crap! It's Superbowl week and the Congresscritters are busy commenting on some quarterback's balls."

Unfortunate but I'm sure the true representatives of democracy The People are already planning to run candidates in the next election that better represent their intere....... wait what about a quarterbacks balls? USA...USA

Re:Preposterous

[SternisheFan]

Those news stories are meant to keep the public distracted from what's really going on. It's the old pickpocket/magician's trick of misdirection, watch the left hand waving about, pay no attention to the other hand slipping into your pocket.

Re:Preposterous

[AchilleTalon]

Of course, DEA deflated themselves the footballs to distracte public from this news. *sigh*

Re:Preposterous

[SternisheFan]

Of course, DEA deflated themselves the footballs to distracte public from this news. *sigh*

What's with the sigh? I never suggested that anyone in a 3 letter agency purposely sent agents to deflate footballs. However when a simple news story, or whatever TV show, takes over the publics attention, it keeps said public from seeing and hearing about issues that do matter.

Re:Preposterous

[dcw3]

Vomit away! Here's a heads up for you, some people do care about cheating, and lying about it even after being caught red handed. But we're off-topic here.

Re:Preposterous

[sjames]

Yes, but the news only reports on it if it is sports related. No Wall Street gate for example, even though the cheating is bigger, more blatant, more clearly deliberate, and does far more harm to the public.

Re:Preposterous

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the news can't label anything remotely scandalous without appending "gate" to their headline displays the exact end of their credibility.

Re:Preposterous

[dcw3]

While I agree with you, and think that a lot of them belong in jail, the news is reporting what captures the most eyeballs.

Welcome to the police state

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Hope...change....whatever.

Any excuse is given to erode civil liberties. If it wasn't drugs, it would have been something else.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[JRV31]

NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ and now we add the DEA to the list of low life pigs that are tracking us.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[thaylin]

Hope...change....whatever.

Any excuse is given to erode civil liberties. If it wasn't drugs, it would have been something else.

A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program set up in 2008 to

But hey, keep blaming the person you probably dont like for the things that happened under the person you probably do like.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[Anonymous Coward]

But hey, keep blaming the person you probably dont like for the things that happened under the person you probably do like.
 
I guess some of us don't understand what the word "change" means.
 
You know, because if the "other guy" did it then a certain someone has no choice but to continue to let it go on.... as if each passing administration's only possible action is to keep the bolder from rolling further down the hill.
 
Right?
 
It's the kind of "thinking" that thaylin put out there that allows abuses to continue with a shrug and a sigh.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[gstoddart]

Let me simplify that alphabet soup for you ... USA.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

If you're in the big chair, you're responsible. That's part of the package of being the President. If you don't like some existing policy then you work to change it. I haven't seen any evidence of that in this realm by the Obama administration. On the contrary, surveillance seems to be accelerating. And for the record, I didn't vote for the previous guy.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[thaylin]

Fallacies. Your entire argument is based on the faulty assumption that just because you are president you magically know about absolutely every single initiative put in place by absolutely every agency under your purview.

Re: Welcome to the police state

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you know or not, you are ultimately responsible. That's the job.

Re: Welcome to the police state

[thaylin]

Depends on what you are talking about. The OP implied he was responsible for the initialization of it, not its continued use. Of course, now that we know he knows, he is responsible for changing it, or allowing it to keep running.

Re: Welcome to the police state

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. There's nothing this guy can do wrong in your mind, is there? Disgusting to see his fanboy base keep defending the deletion of the 4th Amendment without proper procedure. Keep giving him a pass... it's your freedom that is being whisked away... hope you enjoy the monster you're feeding.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[dcw3]

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established on July 1, 1973, not 2008.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[dcw3]

When you vote for a president, you vote for everyone he brings along. Every Secretary, Ambassador, and anyone else who gets swapped out. So, while your point that the president doesn't know everything is accurate, someone chosen by him most likely does. I judge politicians (and everyone else) by the company they keep. When their friends are slimy, you can be certain that they're just as bad.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[Anonymous Coward]

The specific program was started in 2008.

Re:Welcome to the police state

[sjames]

I'm fairly certain the NSA abuses couldn't have escaped his notice. The DEA is out of the bag now, let's see what happens...

Re:Welcome to the police state

[AHuxley]

Yes the different systems get the drivers face, passengers face, front and/or rear vehicle registration plates.
Add in data about any cell phone :)

The UK's automatic numberplate recognition system

[Bruce66423]

probably has the same capability, but has not attracted a lot of attention.

And in other news drug smugglers fight back

[OzPeter]

You can get "trusted traveler" status in order to reduce the time it takes to cross the border. Less checks, faster throughput - what's not to love? Even the drug smugglers love it as they have been targeting such travelers and attaching packets of drugs via magnets to the bottoms of said travelers cars. And to make it really helpful for the smugglers, the DEA used to issue decals for the windshield - thus making it really easy to target the travelers.

Smugglers using unwitting drivers to carry drugs from Mexico

I see what you did there.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Apparently we have no right to go anywhere without car and license plate tracking, and facial recognition software on tens of thousands of cameras. Or in cyberspace without tracking everything. Or using credit and debit cards, to buy anything untracked.

Dictators of old would dream of such a thing at their disposal. England, having abused it badly during the revolution, would have caused the founding fathers to have banned it all...had they succeeded, which would have been far less likely.

More and more government observation can "be done by steam", in the words of Blaise Pascal. It shouldn't be. When politicians have a system "they're supposed to" get a warratlnt for (probably not even that in this case) but no penalty or even alarm if they don't, it will be abused to track political opponents to those in power.

Re:I see what you did there.

[gstoddart]

And any pretense of the 4th amendment no longer being completely shat upon is pretty much gone.

They're pretty much just doing general warrants/blanket surveillance, without probable cause, just in case they find something.

You are not a free society. You think you are.

Someone will say how China actually censors, and the usual sputterings about how you're still free -- but the reality is, every damned thing you do it monitored, tracked, collated, cross-referenced, shared, and cataloged .. and then is dutifully shared across agencies so that if one of them wants to trump up charges on you they can.

With parallel construction, and massive government sharing ... they can incriminate you any number of ways, none of which involve the truth, probably cause, or proper court oversight. If you become troublesome, they'll just sift through the vast catalog of your life and try you for something they find.

Papers, please, comrade.

Western society is pretty much fucked ... the only difference is if those in power will force us to pray, or keep us quiet with American Idol. But "security" is every bit the threat to us as religious extremists.

But make no mistake about it, our freedoms and rights ended on 9/11, and the US is steadily making themselves, and everyone else on the planet, far less free.

America has now become the enemy of freedom and liberty of everybody on the fucking planet.

Re:I see what you did there.

[OzPeter]

And any pretense of the 4th amendment no longer being completely shat upon is pretty much gone.

This was already establish by the 100 mile border zone - which conveniently also covers pretty well all of the US population.

The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone

Re: I see what you did there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is precisely what the war on drugs is. Creating and combating political opponents. We are led by like alcohol, cigarettes, and corn syrup addicts who don't like all the other things others enjoy so it creates an artificial class.

Wish I had the money to offer a bounty on cameras.

[BubbaDave]

We'll have to settle for putting a tire around 'em and filling it with gas.

Toll roads are coved in Cameras as well

[Joe_Dragon]

Toll roads are coved in Cameras as well and they can work even at 120+ MPH

Coincidence?

[hcs_$reboot]

A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration program set up in 2008

Hmmm that's exactly the year of Breaking Bad TV show debut...

Re:Coincidence?

[dcw3]

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established on July 1, 1973

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The post said the program was started in 2008, not the DEA. Reading is fundamental.

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tracking program was started in 2008.

Re:Coincidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, this program started in 2008. You are a dense one.

re: "Congressional hearing"

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, & I'm certain the dea head is quivering in his (/her?) boots at the possibility of a stern finger waving if (i.e. when) proof appears of them perjuring themself in said hearing(s)...

Re:Wish I had the money to offer a bounty on camer

[dargaud]

Most of them are probably invisible. Good luck finding them. Or placed at the top of high poles/3D towers. Good luck reaching them.

Cops Frighten Themselves

[JimSadler]

I suspect that the cops have crossed over into paranoia. I have noticed that certain types of crimes are being pretty much ignored even though complaints about those crimes are numerous. There is a saturation point at which arrests get too common and too expensive. Apparently the cops have been following millions of vehicles and compiling records and are certainly spotting quite a bit of crime. Yet we are not seeing people being swept up in large numbers. I wonder how many people who continuously commit crimes are simply being ignored as a matter of economics and also how frightened law enforcement is about it all. Perhaps we are heading for a situation like we see in Mexico or Italy with crime being almost a part of government of the masses.

Re:Cops Frighten Themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

> I have noticed that certain types of crimes are being pretty much ignored even though complaints about those crimes are numerous.

From the WSJ of all places: The Underpolicing of Black America.

The result has been a doubling down on distrust. When violent crimes go unpunished while nonviolent ones get hammered, many conclude that the state seeks control, not justice. Police don’t benefit either: Devoted cops would much rather chase serious offenders. We should let them.

problem isn't EXISTENCE of dea per se

[Anonymous Coward]

it's that they have power (i.e. scheduling) they aren't qualified to have! strip them of scheduling authority & place it in hands of fda/ama where it belongs! those decisions should be made by md(s) & phd(s), not cops! make them an enforcement ONLY agency (as their name would imply) & while we're at it merge them w/atf - wtf are those separate agencies anyway?

The hunt for suspects

[wonkey_monkey]

their hunt for suspects.

Is that the hunt for people already under suspicion, or a hunt for new names to add to the list?

Re:The hunt for suspects

[russotto]

Is that the hunt for people already under suspicion, or a hunt for new names to add to the list?

Must be the former, because everyone's already on the list.

I guess I can drive on toll roads again

[davidwr]

I was boycotting them because of the cameras, but now it's like "oh well, either I stay locked in my house all day, invent a Harry Potter cloak for my car and hope I don't get hit because I'm invisible, or smile for the camera."

That middle option is looking mighty attractive right now.

Re:I guess I can drive on toll roads again

[Anonymous Coward]

Or get a bike.

Re:I guess I can drive on toll roads again

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Looks like the problem may just be not enough power.

Re:I guess I can drive on toll roads again

[Anonymous Coward]

Or: have a bunch of different license plates (with quick magnetic attaches) -- share with friends, swap tags daily -- or just remove license plates altogether.

Its called Civil Disobedience.

Re:I guess I can drive on toll roads again

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just plate recognition... I bet most cameras also do some facial recognition (even if it's semi-successful, it can provide a probability of someone being in various places at various times).

Papers Please

[nehumanuscrede]

Was the uncivilized method of keeping tabs on you.

In the new millennium, we need not resort to such obvious oppressive methods. We feed you the bullsh*t about how free you are while, at the same time, track every aspect of your life that is possible via technology without your knowledge and / or consent.

If they bother to stop you to ask questions, they're just giving you enough rope to hang yourself with.

They already know the answers.

Re:The UK's automatic numberplate recognition syst

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah nobody ever posts stats about numbers of CCTV cameras in the UK, ever. That never happens. And it'll never happen even more now the irony of the fact that at least ours were public knowledge is present.

Re:The UK's automatic numberplate recognition syst

[ihtoit]

ANRS can be left by the side of the road to happysnap every single vehicle that passes and process the number plate. In fact, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Police use this very technique to issue random fixed penalties on a straight stretch of the A52 where it is so easy to break the speed limit, you're not even aware of having done it. That being said, how can you defend or fight something you're not even aware you've done (and those cameras only go off if you go too fast, right?

Right?)?

Re:Wish I had the money to offer a bounty on camer

[Bob the Super Hamste]

They just stick them on police cars in my state.

Seattle does the same thing

[bobjr94]

In Seattle they have patrol cars parked around the city with special license plate reader equipment than scan and record all passing cars. They say its only for finding stolen cars and wanted felons. But when asked by news media how long they keep these records, they said forever. They don't see a reason why they should not keep a database where a person drives and how often. http://seattletimes.com/html/l...

Re:Seattle does the same thing

[Whorhay]

Every time I pass an obvious vehicle like that I'm tempted to find a tarp or something to drape over it.

Re:Seattle does the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

... something to drape over it.

Been done. So in my state, the vehicle is manned. The tinted windows make it difficult to see a cop lounging on the back seat.

too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have money for mass surveillance, they have too much money.

Re:too much money

[NoKaOi]

And yet they claim not to have resources to go after real crimes that they deem petty and unimportant, like theft.

hmm

[jasno]

this is old news and we've known about it for years. There are also commercial companies that run similar networks.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but where were you guys 4-5 years ago when we first found out about this shit? Not enough people cared then and not enough people care now.

Like we talked about the last time this was in the news, the data is public and there isn't anything you can do about it. The best response is to set up your own network to monitor the government and see how they like it. Imagine how fast they'd try to ban you(like the cops are trying to do with Waze now).

or fall afoul FCC laws

[peter303]

Many shortrange comm device like trafic light controllers use IR or other light frequencies. FCC has gotten nasty about cellphone blocking even on private proerties like jails.

Waze

[Anonymous Coward]

They have this but complain about Waze?

Re:Wish I had the money to offer a bounty on camer

[BubbaDave]

Those burn too...