Slashdot Mirror


DHS Wants Access To License-plate Tracking System, Again

schwit1 writes: The Department of Homeland Security is seeking bids from companies able to provide law enforcement officials with access to a national license-plate tracking system — a year after canceling a similar solicitation over privacy issues. The reversal comes after officials said they had determined they could address concerns raised by civil liberties advocates and lawmakers about the prospect of the department's gaining widespread access, without warrants, to a system that holds billions of records that reveal drivers' whereabouts. "If this goes forward, DHS will have warrantless access to location information going back at least five years about virtually every adult driver in the U.S., and sometimes to their image as well," said Gregory T. Nojeim, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology. ... The largest commercial database is owned by Vigilant Solutions, which as of last fall had more than 2.5 billion records. Its database grows by 2.7 million records a day.

114 comments

  1. Repetition Bores People by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They will keep asking, over and over, forever. The "people" will get bored with the requests, less and less of them will voice their opinions. DHS will win in the end. The United States Government is nothing if not extremely patient and very persistent.

    --
    Some things need to be said...
    1. Re:Repetition Bores People by Trachman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that DHS currently has access to those License plates. There are so called fusion centers which are supposed to be amalgamation of all the mass spying to one interagency group (consisting of multiple agencies).

      The idea is that while they have access now and they are asking to legitimize.

    2. Re:Repetition Bores People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to suspect that some company is about to get a fat exclusive no-bid government contract, as that's what this is really about. Look for the one that made the best campaign contributions for the most recent winners.

    3. Re:Repetition Bores People by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      So the request is to cover their legal ass?

    4. Re:Repetition Bores People by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      That's the way government and its agencies are. They never give up; they never quit growing; they never spend less money; and they always want more power over us. Even the average slashdotter should be able to understand the need for smaller, more transparent government. Instead, the average slashdotter seems to want more and more government rules and regulations. I don't understand their logic.

    5. Re:Repetition Bores People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The People will be well within their authority to disrupt any such service, even if that disruption requires the use of military force.

      And how did Vigilant Solutions or any other private company get a database of plates that is supposed to be restricted information? Maybe it's time for Anonymous or other patriots to go after them as well.

    6. Re:Repetition Bores People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

      Whenever an agency says they don't have enough money and they need more, what they really mean is, they are trying to gain more control over people and want to do more things, so they need money to pay for it.

    7. Re:Repetition Bores People by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Except that DHS currently has access to those License plates. There are so called fusion centers which are supposed to be amalgamation of all the mass spying to one interagency group (consisting of multiple agencies).

      Geez, when the Patriot act and all was going through and the DHS was being formed, I really didn't understand how bad a thing it could/would be!!!

      Man, we need to break it back up again. It was less intrusive and dangerous to the common US citizen when they weren't quite as efficient and weren't able to as easily work with each other. Government gridlock in most all areas, IMHO, is generally a GOOD thing. Shit like this happens to us and we lose freedoms the more efficient and together the Feds seem to get!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Repetition Bores People by davester666 · · Score: 1

      there really isn't any choice in the matter. one company has been scanning license plates in a bunch of cities for years and storing the data. And of course selling the data to anybody with a buck. The DHS wants permission to wallow in this data. Cost doesn't matter.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. there is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no way they could possibly "address concerns" about privacy when that much data is at their fingertips... no.fucking.way.

    1. Re: there is.. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Sure they can: "Because... Terrorism".

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  3. this isn't going to make you safe. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.

    License plate tracking wouldnt have stopped the shoe bomber, the Aurora theatre shootings, the Arizona shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, the fort hood shooting, the innumerable school shootings in america, or the standoff at the Cliven Bundy ranch. a License plate tracking system wouldnt keep the average american safe, but the plutocracy? yes. License plate tracking systems allow you to monitor and track activists and protestors that organize around your government for systemic changes to policies and processes you benefit from disproportionately. Why, a plate tracking system could prevent proper media coverage of the next Fergusson shooting or even identify, proactively, members of the media that should be prevented from ever accessing the state. A plate tracking system would allow the government to create a plutocratically sanctioned whitelist of vehicles allowed to enter or leave DC. It would serve well to blacklist occupy protestors from financial areas, and regulate their entrance and exit to and from parks. It could also be used to collect citations and build cases against potential activists.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how the heck did and does that private company have access to that data in the first place?! (Not being gov of course they are probably safer but still...)

    2. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Livius · · Score: 2

      The catch is that you could imagine more or less plausible scenarios where such information would make a material difference. (In fact, television Hollywood movies do so frequently and they really do sound reasonable if you don't think too carefully.)

      This means they can fool everyone who doesn't think and/or doesn't remember, which sadly is likely to be a majority.

    3. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by tristes_tigres · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Not being government they are probably safer" ?

      What an astonishingly ignorant statement. Billions of corporate propaganda clearly have had profound effect on Americans.

      Corporation is by design and law fascist, top-down hierarchical organization that is unaccountable to public, and forbidden by law to have any motivation except profit motive. That is safer than however flawed and limited checks-and-balances of the government?

    4. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NONE of the high-tech tracking systems can help you against low-tech terrorism. The enemy isn't using those high tech tools.

      That's the whole deal with asymmetric warfare (and let's face it, folks, we can finally call a spade a spade and call it war). Each side will field what is available and affordable to them. For governments, weapons, gadgets, technology and tools are cheap, while reliable and affordable manpower is expensive or hard to come by. For terrorists, it is exactly the opposite.

      It's fairly easy for a terrorist group to communicate without raising any red flags simply by avoiding any of the means of communication that are easy to tap. If everything fails, face to face communication is an option. There's no time constraint, terrorists don't work 9 to 5. Like, say, agents.

      Doesn't history teach us anything? The East Bloc had maybe the most through surveillance system in existence. In the GDR, one of every 50 people was working for the Stasi. 2% of the population. Imagine that! To give you an idea what that means, if the NSA employed 2% of the US population, 6.5 MILLION people would work for them.

      And what did it serve? I mean, except crippling the economy to the point where it collapsed?

      Because that's something that's so easy to overlook but quite dangerous: Surveillance costs money. And we're not talking about pocket change. While at the same time it doesn't do jack. And don't gimme that "but it creates jobs" spiel. Yes, it creates jobs for unemployable idiots, but it would be heaps cheaper to just make the idiots sit at home and pay them for it.

      Not to mention that it also would be a lot less annoying.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the drug war. I have a sneaking suspicion this will be used to do more lazy, no-detective-work, warrant-less shady shit. Like they've been doing with Stingrays, etc.

    6. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      I talked to someone that worked at one of the "Big Three" credit reporting agencies. You know those credit scores that make things cost more, because you have less money? Well, seems they are going to be rolling out "Work Scores" -- ratings of performance of employees that companies can use when the time comes to hire.

      If they implement this "reputation system" and things like license plate tracking. Nothing will happen. You will try and get a job somewhere, and will never hear back. You will be curious why you can't get a loan. Nothing will happen TOO YOU, and nothing will happen FOR YOU. You will just be inexplicably a permanent loser.

      The invisible hand of the market place will finally find it's way around your neck. The marketplace does not want people who question the way things are done and who cause a fuss. Just be popular, agree with what is shameful or interesting at the water cooler, play golf, laugh at the executive jokes, kiss ass and make a living.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    7. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shoe bomber, AKA Richard Reid, boarded a Paris to Miami flight in Paris. So yeah, a license plate tracking system definitely wouldn't have stopped him.

      Just sayin'.

    8. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like your comment. When you distill it down to the raw motivations; how COULD a company be trusted? Big or Small, there is a power vacuum. What do you want filling that power? Fast Food, Goldman Sachs, and a Credit Rating agency?

      There was good work done by faceless bureaucrats in Washington for many years. Yes, there are careerists and cogs and people who muddle through,... but the "inefficiency"? People have no clue about an economy if they worry about the "cost of government." Every year around sweeps, our TV News covers "lazy government workers."

      Someone shows up, gets paid, raises a family. Life goes on. I worked in marketing - and that's not necessary if there is one product. Most accountants aren't "necessary" if the tax code were made simple -- I'd be all for that; no taxes until your family makes over $120k and get rid of sales tax -- then you've got 1,000 less points of taxation on those who an afford and who actually get the most benefits AND that would spur investment to avoid taxation and lose the money (lowering capital gains has the effect of lowering capital investment-- see; history). Anyway -- the point is; for most of us, there is an artificial environment of inefficiency that created our job.

      If we had total efficiency; there'd be a robotic plant that created all your stuff, drones would bring it to you, but they wouldn't because you'd have no money to buy anything because you were replaced by a robot.

      So fundamentally; business wants you as an outlet, and wants to only pay you as little as possible, and shift costs of educating you to someone else. Government is motivated by the people involved, and who puts them in their job and gives them their power. Increasingly; that's corporate money more than votes -- the same money that owns the insipid news station that covers the heinous crimes of road workers caught napping.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Corporation is ... forbidden by law to have any motivation except profit motive.

      B. S.

      Corporations are chartered organizations and their motivations are whatever their charters mandate them to be. That's why there are things like "not-for-profit" corporations. NPR. The American Red Cross. The AFL-CIO. The American Medical Association. Thousands of neighborhood homeowners associations. And so forth. That's not even counting the for-profits who worry as much about doing the Right Thing as they do about profits. For example, Costco.

      For-profit corporations spend a lot of time an money lobbying the government for favors, it's true. But I think you'll agree that some of the above corporations do also.

    10. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think the majority are fooled -- the Majority doesn't vote or is Independent. The MAJORITY is discouraged by the constant deceit and don't want to expend the energy arguing -- just making a living and enjoying what they can.

      The people who are FOOLED are the ardent supporters who likely get more information on the subjects they are so ignorant about.

      I remember years ago working with a company that sold the Interest Only home loans. They hired a guest speaker for about $100K for their conventions and other speaking engagements who wrote a book on how you could put all that wonderful equity from a home into the market. Keeping a mortgage is your cheapest credit card. Which, conceptually, if you crunch the numbers, works out on paper if you are a wise investor and don't ever use this money for food.

      Anyway, the point is; an author who wrote a crap book promoting a crap financial concept got lots of money, and I'm a worker drone who is informed, and thought the idea was going to run a lot of people into serious trouble.

      Think tanks and charlatans get paid big bucks to inform people of "wisdom" that makes people with lots of money, lots more money. The Wall Street insiders who have financial shows on PBS or NPR. The numerous "think tanks" who churn out papers on how not having tariffs allows America to "be competitive" -- as if any of that helped 99% of the public.

      So who is the fool? People got good jobs and paychecks working at companies selling bad ideas. There are people working at horrible companies that every year find a new way to add a fee to their services and bilk customers.

      I was aware and predicting the 2008 bank collapse because I noticed the reserve requirement on banks kept going down (it got negative in the last couple months) -- and that meant they were over-leveraged. For all my wisdom, I didn't improve my economic situation.

      There are people who believe in talking snakes, that human activity cannot effect the climate, and who vote for less protection of workers even though they are a worker -- and YET, those people are better off than me financially. People who believe that America can do no wrong and has noble ideals AND can do horrible things because they have those ideals (not noticing that it can't maintain AND break ideals to be noble), are much more promotable. The person who will administer electric shocks because they were told to, and who will happily sell the Interest Only mortgage to a young lawyer with $300,000 in student loans is someone a business wants to hire.

      SURVIVAL is why people in our society may not pay attention to things they think are unnecessary. And being a MORON is a good way for an average person to succeed financially. Being both aware and altruistic means that your chance for success is more limited. We have a Darwinian dog-eat-dog system in this country, and dogs are better adapted to it.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    11. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by houghi · · Score: 2

      How is this "freedom" thing going for you? I hear my country might be interested in it.
      Is the waving of that many flags a requirement? Bceause the last time we did that it did not end well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by tristes_tigres · · Score: 1

      > That's not even counting the for-profits who worry as much about doing the Right Thing as they do
      > about profits.

      I have a very nice bridge available for a low, low price. Interested?

    13. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.

      That's A) frightening and B) impossible.

      LIFE isn't safe or secure. You can be struck by a meteorite crashing through your bathroom roof and slip and fall in the shower, bumping a live electrical appliance while a tornado descends on your house during an earthquake that opens up a sinkhole under the foundation before the tsunami rushes in.

      In the end, SOMETHING's going to get you, no matter who you are, no matter where you are, no matter what you are doing or how well you protect yourself. Sam Walton's billions didn't keep him from dying of cancer.

      There are limits to how much time, energy and money it's worth spending to be "safe", especially if you want a life that's worth living.

      The incidents that made us all hide under the blankets like frightened children could have been forestalled by simply applying the security practices that were already in effect but ignored. Without adding new and extreme search and surveillance. And even then, the only reason that the attacks worked in 3 out of 4 cases is that only the passengers on the 4th plane learned in time that the old covenants had been broken. They adjusted quickly. If not in time to save themselves, at least in time to save others.

      Time and again the ordinary people and everyday law enforcement have caught would-be terrorists before they could do anything while the souped-up super-agencies either got caught with their pants down or made their headlines by contrived entrapment of relatively harmless people.

      The fundamental problem with all this enhanced "security" is that it's being applied to a nation that was founded with the basic idea that security wasn't something the King sent in, it was something that the everyday people were expected to provide for themselves and each other. And, on the whole, the everyday people have generally done a pretty good job of it.

      So. Do we want Nanny watching over us all in the false hope that nothing will ever go wrong, or are we willing to accept the fact that sometimes Bad Things are going to happen and learn to live on our own?

      -- AC. Why make it easy for the Feds to build up their watchlists?

    14. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      NONE of the high-tech tracking systems can help you against low-tech terrorism. The enemy isn't using those high tech tools.

      Yes, well, the agenda was; track the population so we can CONTROL THEM.

      We all should know that was the excuse. Dick Cheney's PNAC group had the Patriot Act and Iraq invasion plans written years earlier and shows that he used disasters as an opportunity for an agenda - we should only wonder why anyone with internet access can know these things and yet it does not appear as a point of discussion on our TV News.

      People on TV and the press talk about "reasonable things." Things that have made the gauntlet of other people on suits on TV.

      Everyone watching TV news "KNOWS" that Iran is two years away from developing a nuclear weapon -- yet not that they've been two years away for thirty years now.

      Everyone knows that we need security -- yet not that mercenary companies can buy tanks. That foreign companies own weapons plants on US soil. That engineers have tried to go on strike and nuclear weapons facilities over unsafe working conditions and long hours -- and that private companies are running these facilities and cutting costs.

      Bill Maher pointed out the other day that about 26,000 people die due to antibiotic resistant bacteria -- the threats of a 9/11 incident each year pale in comparison to the real threats we ignore. There's obviously nothing to be gained by worrying the public with things that won't increase profits or power. You are more likely to be shot by police than a terrorist. So why did we spend $3 Trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan? We could have put everyone in those countries through college and bought them a home -- and 99.999% of them would likely kill anyone who would harm us just out of gratitude.

      The media has interviews with “security experts” who debate the dangers of whistleblowers like Snowden. The “enemy” might get our secrets. Really? Did the Media cover the Wikileaks that told how agencies doing work for the NSA and CIA routinely sell databases of information gleaned about Americans to private companies? If China wants to know something - they don’t go to Snowden. They go to a firm.

      Is there some “military strategy” that could be compromised? Is that F16 or drone with a GPS guided missile not going to win against that guy with an AK47 4 miles away on the infrared targeting system that costs more than his closest ten villages?

      There is no "enemy" just people trying to get power vs. other people in power. A person like Cheney wants to get dirt on some political opponent or to have a war with a country that his friends paid to profit from, or a corporation wants to sell diseased cattle and cut corners and make profits so want dirt on someone who might stand in their way. Tracking EVERYONE, does not track people who are intending to sabotage the system. They will steal, disguise and use low-tech methods. But it's great to manipulate people who are part of the system and ruin their lives if they get in your way.

      We can't have a Democracy or even representational government with "total awareness" -- and that's the reason it's the solution to whatever disaster they care so much about. If they cared about human life, I'd have a decent wage and Universal healthcare -- for instance. Doesn't seem to be a priority for "securing" the homeland.

      I'm more interested in being protected from our Dick Cheney's and Judicial Punishment System.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    15. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are VERY naive.

    16. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not being naive. There is diversity in corporations, much like diversity in the people who form them.

      But his point goes contrary to the stated example. A company that collects license plate data to sell, is not NPR, or Ben & Jerry's, or the Red Crosss. You can assume any such boring endeavor has a profit motive. Like most corporations they will sell to anyone within the limits of the law, and when a juicy customer is outside the law they will do a cost benefit analysis on the legal expenditures required to increase sales.

      So if your point was that corporations are naturally evil, I would argue. If your point was that this particular kind of corporation will have a natural bent to infringe on our civil liberties... Inarguably, by design.

    17. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use your brain. If a company, which survives on profit, sacrifices at least some profit to do the right thing, they will not be nearly as successful and will be invisible unless you go looking for them.

      Have you looked or are you an ignorant asshat that thinks they know and can sum up everything in the corporate world in a three line slashdot post?

    18. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the GDR, one of every 50 people was working for the Stasi. 2% of the population. Imagine that! To give you an idea what that means, if the NSA employed 2% of the US population, 6.5 MILLION people would work for them.

      5.1 million people hold active security clearances.

      That's not the same thing as NSA employees. But still it is a really bad sign that we are at levels equivalent to the peak of the cold war when the enemy actually had hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on espionage.

    19. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      Here is what is going to happen. They will invest in license plate trackers while autonomous cars start to hit the roads. Soon, autonomous cars will be driving by themselves. I can even envision the day where multiple families timeshare an autonomous vehicle. Why park a car in a lot when someone else could be using it? The day of the autonomous taxi is not far away.

      Meanwhile we need a clever way to defeat the license plate readers. Since they are fixed tech, how hard could it be? Spraying the plate with IR reflective coating and then mounting HID (High Intensity Infrared Leds) to complete blow out the IR filter in the camera sensor. It seems like these things could be defeated.

      Any ideas?

    20. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure many large companies worry about doing the right thing for its own sake. In some cases, it's great PR. In other cases, it can improve the company's efficiency, like any other long-term thinking.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by tristes_tigres · · Score: 1

      Corporations are forbidden by law to have any motive other than profit. If immortal, soulless legal person concerned solely with profit is not the very definition of evil, I don't know what is.

    22. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't history teach us anything? The East Bloc had maybe the most through surveillance system in existence. In the GDR, one of every 50 people was working for the Stasi. 2% of the population. Imagine that! To give you an idea what that means, if the NSA employed 2% of the US population, 6.5 MILLION people would work for them. And what did it serve? I mean, except crippling the economy to the point where it collapsed?

      East Germany: Alpha site. Pen and paper. Didn't scale.
      PRC 1990s: Beta site. Great Firewall. Built with Western-supplied routers. Proved scalability. Proved hypothesis that you can have economic growth and political stability in a surveillance state, because you no longer need 2% of your workers doing surveillance.
      USA 2000s: Live site. Full store for a few days to go back if anything actually happens from someone we didn't know about. Bigger storage going back forever if anyone ever becomes interesting. Total information awareness. Knowledge is power.

    23. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some ideas:

      (1) IR-opaque film that is transparent in the visible spectrum
      (2) Electrochromic film with at least 2 elements that alternate flickering at 30hz so that to a 60hz camera half the plate is always obscured but to the human eye with persistence of vision the plate appears fully visible
      (3) Stickers with characters using the same font, size and coloring on either side of the plate to trick the OCR into inserting errors into the recorded data

    24. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well, seems they are going to be rolling out "Work Scores" -- ratings of performance of employees that companies can use when the time comes to hire.

      Old news.

      Also you should be pissed that Equifax has access to salary info on one third of americans and is selling access to that.

    25. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is that sensible surveillance isn't something you can automatize easily. Computers cannot decide which information is useful and which isn't. We still struggle with computers being able to grasp the meaning of simple written sentences. Let alone spoken word (can be fun to talk to an automated system when you're drunk. Now imagine someone deliberately talking in heavy slang).

      Sure, you can make systems sieve the yottabytes of data you collect for certain words or strings. And as soon as you may learn about some "code" or slang used you can sieve for those too. But for that you first of all have to know this. There's no way a computer could "listen" to a conversation and decide whether it's suspicious or not. Is it suspicious if I tell someone that my aunt Nancy will have an operation tomorrow? Well, not 'til in 3 days when it turns out that aunt Nancy was the name for the target and the operation is whatever "operation" we had on the target.

      And I'm not even talking about the double meaning of some words. Good code even sounds very innocent, especially if you have no idea of the real meaning, or that another wording would be used if other conditions applied. Some may remember the "he's a friend of me/friend of us" distinction made by mobsters when introducing someone new to inform the other mobsters if it's ok to talk. If I trust the guy I bring to the group, he's a "friend of us". If not, he's a "friend of me". Is it suspicious for the snitch if he is introduced as a "friend of me"? No, of course not. Especially if he doesn't know that he should be introduced as a friend of us if the one he tried to shadow really trusted him.

      Such things you can only crack by using manpower. Criminals don't trust anyone lightly, and they most certainly don't trust technology. Even with ordinary people who don't have anything to hide, so to speak, you'll notice that some won't talk about certain topics on the phone. Technology isn't something people trust. And that's double true for paranoid criminals who have good reason to assume someone is trying to get in on their conversation.

      So unless you're happy with post facto crime solving, which is pointedly useless with suicide bombers because, uh, yeah, we know he blew himself up and we're pretty certain he won't do it again even if we can't find him ... or most of his parts, at least, simple data collection won't help you squat. You not only have to know what to collect but also what to look for.

      And that's something you won't get without investing heavily in manpower.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Based on what I've seen, very few companies of any size worry about doing the right thing. I do mostly appreciate the ones that do, although in some cases, their "right thing" is based on religion, not ethics.

    27. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are probably ways to simplify the tax code, but I'd much rather see a negative income tax or universal basic income first and foremost to help our nature's poor.

    28. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Repeating an untruth doesn't make it true, even if Fox News may give that impression.

      Some day when you're grown up, you, too may decide to incorporate, and you'll have to opportunity to see what corporations really are forbidden to do by law.

    29. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a load of bullshit. There's no law that says "If you incorporate, the corporation must do everything it can to make money." There are non-profit corporations, and plenty of companies try to do the right thing while making money at the same time. Furthermore, they aren't legally people. The concept of "corporate personhood" just means that the people inside of a corporation don't lose their rights when they form one. You should really do some reading about this sort of thing before you run around spouting lies.

    30. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by tristes_tigres · · Score: 1

      Nice bit of shilling for corporate America. Did you learn to do it on your marketing job, perchance?

      The officers of public corporation are charged by law to maximize the shareholder profit. If they stray from that duty in any significant way to actually do good, rather than appear to be "socially responsible" as a part of PR strategy, they will face shareholder lawsuits, hostile takeovers and removal by shareholder vote.

    31. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by tristes_tigres · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is. It's called "fiduciary duty". Look it up some day, sunshine.

    32. Re:this isn't going to make you safe. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      One of the most interesting posts I've read here all year.

  4. What could possibly go wrong? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A system that tracks the whereabouts of every American (or at least, every one with a car), and saves the data for five years...
    This story needs the tag "what could possibly go wrong"?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's the scary thing:

      The system ALREADY EXISTS.

      The article is about the DHS asking for access to the system from private companies that are already recording that data.

      Instead, it is seeking bids from companies that already gather the data to say how much they would charge to grant access to law enforcement officers at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS agency. ...

      The largest commercial database is owned by Vigilant Solutions, which as of last fall had more than 2.5 billion records. Its database grows by 2.7 million records a day.

      DHS officials say Vigilant’s database, to which some field offices have had access on a subscription basis, has proved valuable in solving years-old cases.

      So, yeah. You're already being spied on. Fortunately, for now, it's only in the hands of private businesses who sell it to anyone who's willing to pay. Or is that really all that fortunate?

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could possibly go wrong? Absolutely nothing, if you're in the business of government. If the plan "succeeds", you gain precedent for the next expansion of power and revenue. If the plan "fails", you re-cast the failure as justification for even more power and revenue. For the business of government, it's a pure win-win situation.

  5. Can we just kill these cockbags now? by Chas · · Score: 2

    They've be MUCH more secure when they're 6 feet under.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  6. the next Kickstarter project by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Funny

    the old 007 rotating-license-plate

    1. Re:the next Kickstarter project by KingBozo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even better, get some bumper stickers with random numbers characters on them, and the plate readers will have multiple numbers to collect.

      bumper stickers are not illegal yet.

    2. Re:the next Kickstarter project by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1
      1. Drive around a Walmart parking lot.
      2. Find a car that looks exactly like yours.
      3. Write down the license plate number.
      4. Get an ex-con to make you a new license plate with the same number.
      5. Profit! . . . um, I guess I mean Privacy!

      There is one small catch . . . if you happen to copy the license plate of a criminal, things could get complicated . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:the next Kickstarter project by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      1. Drive around a Walmart parking lot.
      2. Find a car that looks exactly like yours.
      3. Write down the license plate number.
      4. Get an ex-con to make you a new license plate with the same number.
      5. Profit! . . . um, I guess I mean Privacy!

      There is one small catch . . . if you happen to copy the license plate of a criminal, things could get complicated . . .

      Well, in the Brave New Land of the Free, of COURSE the license plate will belong to a criminal. Just like yours will.

    4. Re:the next Kickstarter project by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The license plate is registered to you, right?

      Mount the plate with quick-release bolts. When you park somewhere take it with you, or store it inside the vehicle.

      Or, you could find the motor pool where they park the plate-reader parking enforcement vehicles and set them all on fire.

      Or, you could find the politicians/bureaucrats responsible and set them on fire.

      Depends on your style, I suppose.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:the next Kickstarter project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Mount the plate with quick-release bolts. When you park somewhere take it with you, or store it inside the vehicle.

      Much easier to do an electrochromic cover - they go opaque when the power is removed.

      What I'd like to see is a multi-segment electrochromic cover that flickers such that to the human eye with persistence of vision it appears to be clear, but to a camera with a very short exposure time, all images will only capture part of the plate number, the other part being obscured.

    6. Re:the next Kickstarter project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, stupid cut-n-paste.
      Electrochromic cover: http://www.sunflexzone.com/products/electrochromic-smart-film-e-glass

    7. Re:the next Kickstarter project by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      Or you could just back in where you park. Then they can't easily take a picture of you when they drive by.

      *That only works in starts where you aren't required to have front license plates.

    8. Re:the next Kickstarter project by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I once got a ticket for a tag 7 days past expiration. The officer had to go onto semi-private property and look under the bumper overhang to see the expiration date sticker. And obviously did.

      If I had removed the plate, the officer would have gone around to the front of the vehicle and read out the VIN from the display window on the windshield. And if the VIN number had been obscured, AND the plate was missing... I'd like to think being met by a SWAT team would be overkill, but in my town, I'm not 100% sure, based on some of the other things they've done.

  7. Concerns Addressed by rea1l1 · · Score: 2

    Of course they could. With access to the data they'll quickly know where all of their "concerns" live and be able to , well, "address them".

  8. Is there a reason they can't build this system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is outsourcing the only thing the government knows how to do these days?

    1. Re:Is there a reason they can't build this system? by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      The data is already being collected, and has been for years; why should the NSA put out bids to create a parallel system that won't have historical data when it stands up, when they can just put out bids for building them an interface to the existing database?

  9. National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Summary really needs a link to Vigilant Solutions' National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS)

    The National Vehicle Location Service (NVLS) is a national data sharing initiative started by Vigilant in 2008. The data in NVLS is made up from two primary sources: 1) data shared to NVLS from law enforcement and 2) commercial LPR, or “private” data harvested by Vigilant.

    Data shared to NVLS by law enforcement is available free of charge via a LEARN account from Vigilant; sharing to NVLS by Vigilant LPR customers is up to the agency and can be changed at any time. The data remains the property of the agency and is governed by the data retention policy set by that agency. The data is accessible only to law enforcement users, and is not shared or used by Vigilant Solutions in any way.

    The largest pool of data is that harvested by Vigilant from commercial sources, most notably, Vigilant’s subsidiary, DRN (Digital Recognition Network). This pool of LPR data totals over 2 billion detections and grows at a rate of over 70 million per month. This data is available via an annual subscription and greatly enhances an agency’s investigative reach.

    Data Sharing and Interoperability. Users of LEARN can choose to share their LPR data to NVLS, or select individual agencies for sharing. With minimal integration, competitive LPR systems can also share with NVLS for the benefit of the larger law enforcement community and to have access to their own data within the LEARN environment for improved analytics. Even agencies that do not have LPR systems can leverage the shared pool of LPR data to conduct searches for vehicles of interest.

    Data Security is paramount with NVLS. Hosted in the same secure facility as LEARN, and governed by the same redundancy, power management, backup, and physical security, NVLS also features a strict credentialing policy due to its accessibility via the web. Registered users must have a valid Originating Agency Identifier (ORI), a government email address, and pass through several layers of validation to gain access. Periodic audits and re-validation insure that only credentialed law enforcement have access to this data.

    Investigative Leads are provided by NVLS via LEARN at a level that would otherwise be impossible for an agency to achieve under their own resources and finances. Additionally, the nature of the LPR collected from private sources tends to be stationary vehicles and/or vehicles entering into parking and/or other access controlled locationsproviding law enforcement with detailed precise and targeted historical location information for vehicles of interest.

  10. Already privately owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fact that this info is already privately owned is worse.

  11. Terrible AND inadequate by Primate+Pete · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how to connect "virtually every adult driver in the U.S.," with "Its database grows by 2.7 million records a day."

    That would amount only a handful of observations of each driver per year, average. Still a privacy violation, but not very useful if the interest is in building a model of an individual's behavior or knowing the individual's current whereabouts.

    One of the risks here is that the system will seriously jeopardize individual privacy at the same time that no useful benefit will be created. This has the potential to void even the morally bankrupt "the end justifies the means" argument for the system.

    1. Re:Terrible AND inadequate by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      That is currently the largest privately owned system. DHS is obviously unhappy with the hodge podge of such systems, and their relatively small size. It wants one big system it can own and not have to ask to access.

  12. We Should End This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The federal government is simply a broken mess. At this point, we would be better off if the individual states disowned it and formed a new government to unite them.
    Seriously, once one state realizes this and goes it's own way, the rest will follow.
    It's only a matter of time.

    1. Re:We Should End This by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      IMHO the only reasonable way to fix it is for an Article 5 convention of the states to put the leviathan back in its place.

  13. Hijack someone else's car - problem solved. by FreeBillClinton · · Score: 2

    I feel safer already.

  14. Let them choke on their own data. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As our government continues spending taxpayer money on the industrial security complex, they will continues to collect trillions of bytes of data. That is obvious. The vested interests in collecting and analyzing this data have a wonderful perpetual money making scheme.

    Now, these entities will be analyzing this data and we all know that when you have a shit load of data, you start seeing things Your algorithms may start picking things up. The dark side of Big Data.

    They are going to get so many false leads that they will not have the manpower to do anything. They'll be chasing after people that have no intention of doing anything, and they'll miss the folks who are quite careful about attracting attention.

    And then there might be some social passive protests like, name all of our sons Mohamed. Write a book called the Anarchists Bible and print chicken recipes. Pay strictly in cash for your road trip, then on the way back, pay with a credit card - or do that for one leg of your trip. Trip up the data. Give misspelled names, street addresses, false middle names...wrong eye color. Nothing really egregious, but enough to make their lives much more difficult.

    Make it illegal? Well why don't they prove it. Is it me or a tired clerk entering my data?

  15. CBP by bhcompy · · Score: 2

    Customs and Border Protection is a division of DHS and they have this already. Kind of strange.

  16. Next step -- VMT by Thagg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with license plate readers is that there are only so many cameras out there. How can they know where everybody was all the time?

    The answer is the Vehicles Miles Traveled tax. Many states and the federal gov't have proposed over and over that all cars have GPS trackers in them that tax them on how many miles they drive. They say "the problem is cars are more efficient, so we don't make as much money." (Can't you just raise the rate then? wtf?) or that this is "more fair", everybody is charged the same amount for how far they drive; as opposed to how much gas they use and how much carbon they emit.

    But, come on, the real reason is almost certainly to track where everybody went, all the time. If there is anything the Snowden revelations have demonstrated, it's that if there is any possible way to capture data on people, the government is going to do it. Anything you can imagine, and many things that you could never have imagined, are being done. If you want to believe that a GPS tracker that hooks up to a gas pump only sends one bit of information, well, I suppose you deserve what you get.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:Next step -- VMT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO NO NO NO NO, the answer is not a vehicle miles traveled tax as it is commonly thought of involveing GPS and all that bullshit tracking.
      Yes, miles traveled is reasonable. But it must ONLY be tracked when you go every year to renew your vehicle "registration", aka: tax. They simply come out, read your odometer, and tax you for mileage then. NO tracking needed at all.
      FUCK the government and everyone who comes up with all these tracking schemes.

    2. Re:Next step -- VMT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is the Vehicles Miles Traveled tax. Many states and the federal gov't have proposed over and over that all cars have GPS trackers in them that tax them on how many miles they drive.

      A much simpler solution is to tax based on odometer reading -- most people already have to do yearly vehicle inspections anway. For the rare case where someone has significant miles on private property let them install the GPS if they want the tax break. Give them a switch to disable the GPS any time they want since the GPS miles on private property will be subtracted from the odometer reading there will be no need to record the miles on public property.

      > (Can't you just raise the rate then? wtf?)

      Not for electric.

      > the real reason is almost certainly to track where everybody went, all the time.

      No, the real reason is to pad the pockets the campaign donors who make vehicle gps trackers. The ability to track everybody's movements is just authoritarian serendipity.

    3. Re:Next step -- VMT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their argument is it would be illegal to tax you for miles driven in another state, thus the need for GPS to verify that you are taxed correctly. They are just thinking of your best interests.

    4. Re:Next step -- VMT by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      We already have this tracking system in place, it is called a smartphone or OnStar or any other vehicle crash reporting system.

  17. No. Data deleted after 14 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Data deleted after 14 days.

  18. make your license plate non-scannable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sure this is possible..?

    1. Re:make your license plate non-scannable by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
      It is but it may be illegal in your state depending on the laws and what method is under taken. I have looked into this and it seems that by far the most effective method of stopping this is with a license plate cover that distorts the image or blocks IR, these cameras operate in IR. Now in my state Minnesota State Statute 169.79 Subd. 7 states:

      All plates must be (1) securely fastened so as to prevent them from swinging, (2) displayed horizontally with the identifying numbers and letters facing outward from the vehicle, and (3) mounted in the upright position. The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity.

      So this makes it illegal to use the most effective method of stopping these things. Also it makes almost all of those vanity license plate holders illegal so consider that as it just gives them an excuse to pull you over. The other popular method of attempting to defeat ALPRs seems to be to use a few high output IR LEDs in attempt to dazzle the sensor by flooding surrounding pixels but in those don't seem to work all that well. Others have tried to flash IR LEDs but this may also be illegal in your state as it is in mine as there are usually laws governing flashing lights in motion.

      My take would be instead to pump out enough IR over a large enough are to mess with the camera's exposure. Bye enough IR over a large enough of an area I am thinking of a few hundred watts over an area slightly larger than the license plate immediately surrounding it, but not covering the plate at all. From what I can tell this hasn't been attempted, but now we are talking real bright as the sun levels of power and that should screw up the metering on the camera. For LEDs I am thinking these as they appear to be about as high efficiency as I can find that put out a lot of IR.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:make your license plate non-scannable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > make your license plate non-scannable

      These systems are OCR based.
      So put stickers on either side of the plate with characters the same size and font as the plate.

      That will cause the OCR to read extra characters so they can't automatically cross-reference with vehicle registration records. That won't stop human inspection of photos, but the real threat here is the use of databases.

  19. Not random numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    But something like
    ';drop tables.

    http://bobby-tables.com/

    1. Re:Not random numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AWSOME.

  20. The slow blade penetrates by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    Persistent lobbyists will get everything they want. Opposition will tire emotionally of fighting and winning, until they lose once, and then they won't have the energy to claw it back. People will be left to make way in their lives for whatever it was so that it doesn't effect enough compliant sheep to ever put up much of a fight to get things back the way they were.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:The slow blade penetrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a question of money. Persistent lobbyists require cash.

      So who the fuck pays the DHS shills?

    2. Re:The slow blade penetrates by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Taxpayers. They are bureaucrats trying to increase their budgets to get paid more.

      --
      ...
    3. Re:The slow blade penetrates by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      +1 for the Dune reference :D

    4. Re:The slow blade penetrates by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      I think this is what is meant by being bound with chains of our own forging.

  21. Give It To Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So give it to them. Have them budget it, spend the money, gain absolutely nothing, fuck it up, suffer a massive data leak, embarass themselves and the government, ask for more money to clean it up, become a bloated inefficient disaster, and finally, finally, when the US eventually gets around to becoming an Orwellian dictatorship, at least it will resemble Brazil instead of 1984.

    I know which future I'd choose. And it involves the DHS.

    1. Re:Give It To Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thats a big assumption that it will end up that way. I for one am not willing to take that risk. I stand against the DHS.

    2. Re:Give It To Them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So give it to them. Have them budget it, spend the money, gain absolutely nothing, fuck it up

      Time for Godwin: In 1933, the German establishment decided to make Hitler the new chancellor, on the theory that he would screw everything up, lose credibility, and then the Nazi movement would collapse. That plan didn't work, and neither will yours. Besides, your basic premise is that the DHS should not do this because it is inefficient. Rather, they should not do it because it is wrong and unconstitutional. Whether or not it is an efficient use of their resources is irrelevant.

       

    3. Re:Give It To Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well technicly he did Fuck it all up. Although it took a few more years to do.

    4. Re:Give It To Them by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You do realize that essentially only 2 things combined caused him to fail? The invasion of Russia being delayed by a month alone might have made the difference, but the attack on Pearl Harbor sealed the deal. Without the latter, the US likely would not have entered the war in time to save Britain, which was on the brink of surrendering. Without Britain as a staging area, WWII could have had very different results. You're seeing a similar territory and power grab being made by ISIL today.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Give It To Them by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In fact, the US was actively supporting Britain and waging war in the Atlantic before Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor attack actually interfered with the war against Germany: US materiel that could have gone to troops actively fighting the European Axis were withheld for training or sent to the Pacific. Britain was never on the brink of surrendering, and in particular wasn't going to surrender in 1941, having weathered 1940.

      Germany never came particularly close to defeating the Soviet Union. An earlier invasion would have helped, but the Russian spring (much worse for mobile operations than the winter) lasted late in 1941, and Germany had to deal with the Balkans situation in any case. Arguably, a different strategy could have won, or an actual single strategy (Barbarossa was initially supposed to be an attempt to destroy the Red Army, and was switched mid-campaign to an attempt to take Moscow), but all we've really got is speculation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Give It To Them by Panoptes · · Score: 2

      "You do realize that essentially only 2 things combined caused him to fail? The invasion of Russia being delayed by a month alone might have made the difference, but the attack on Pearl Harbor sealed the deal. Without the latter, the US likely would not have entered the war in time to save Britain, which was on the brink of surrendering..."

      Am I correct in assuming that you are not a historian?

    7. Re: Give It To Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Beyond this, many people in Germany didn't even want to fight, but the Nazi movement forced them to. WW2 was a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch.

  22. Already unconstitutional? by sycodon · · Score: 2

    The supremes have recently ruled that gps tracking requires a warrant.

    One could argue that a system which a amalgamates multiple, automated sightings is pretty much the same thing as gps tracking.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Already unconstitutional? by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt this. License plates are visible to the public and GPS tracking is not. Installing a GPS device is even more invasive.

      --
      Some things need to be said...
    2. Re:Already unconstitutional? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 2

      License plates are visible and a single check at a point in time isn't very telling, but if you write a query that says "show me all the license plates that have been in the vicinity of this intersection by this church on Sunday between 9AM and 5PM more than 3 times in past 60 days", I bet you'd have a pretty good idea of who attends. You can apply the same logic to find residence, employer, or just about anything that is a consistent pattern. You can treat anyone who was present around the time of an incident as a potential suspect. The argument gets made that it is legal to follow a car on the street without a warrant so this is no different, but while cops can follow one car, they don't have resources to follow everyone and in this case the technology allows them to follow everyone all the time. All they have to do is ask the database the right question and they can find out just about anything they want about people's habits or about which people are likely connected to a specific location.

  23. Reminds me of the spy satellite restrictions by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    As the government isn't allowed to spy on citizens without a warrent, under normal circumstances, the satellites aren't supposed to take images when over the U.S.

    So the government instead buys images from commercial vendors ... the same folks who provide images to Google and Bing for their mapping projects. (which admittedly, might not be as high of resolution).

    I'm thinking that there needs to be a line drawn, otherwise all you end up doing is having a way to make an end-run around the legal verdict -- "we'll just spin off a company that does what we're not allowed to do, and buy the results from them".

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:Reminds me of the spy satellite restrictions by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that, whenever my car and license plate are visible from public land, keeping track of my car isn't spying in that sense. The police have always been allowed to use what they can see without trespass. If they wanted to keep track of my car, they always had the legal authority.

      The new development is mass surveillance. This isn't a matter of the police deciding to keep a particular car under observation, it's a matter of them keeping all cars under observation all the time. The big problem is that mass surveillance is legally just a lot of individually legal things, but it's qualitatively different.

      In the US, nobody has ever had Fourth or Fifth Amendment protection when it came to things other people held. You're secure against unreasonable search in your home and your personal possessions, but if somebody else has incriminating information on you the police can legitimately ask them. Private companies and individuals aren't subject to the same restrictions law enforcement officers are. If the police break into your house without a warrant and find evidence of a crime, that evidence can't legally be used in a trial, or any other evidence stemming from that. If I break into your house and find evidence of a crime, I can hand that over to the police, and as long as it's clear that I was acting only on my own initiative, with no prompting or suggestions from the police, that's admissible. (I'm also guilty of burglary or breaking and entering.)

      So, we need to establish legal frameworks to control mass surveillance and the use of information collected by third parties. It will take a while.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. Repetitive cameras at roadside and poles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe a lot of the data companies like "Vigilant" have is coming from the intersection and roadside / highway pole cameras you see mounted everywhere in the USA. I don't know if it's the companies mounting them themselves in rights of way, or if it's the government mounting them and giving the data away in some kind of sick partnership. Either way, the government is at fault. And you are at fault for not stopping it.
    FUCK the government, and basically, FUCK you.

    1. Re:Repetitive cameras at roadside and poles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their database was built using information collected by their cameras, which has license plate number with location and time data. They don't need information about the plates, as the people requesting the location data against the license plate data already have that. They know who you are, they just want to know where you were and when, along with other plates nearby to look for associations with other persons they may be watching.

    2. Re:Repetitive cameras at roadside and poles by DroolTwist · · Score: 1
      Bah, this was supposed to be in response to the post below me:

      And how did Vigilant Solutions or any other private company get a database of plates that is supposed to be restricted information?

    3. Re:Repetitive cameras at roadside and poles by DroolTwist · · Score: 1

      One last response to myself: I didn't think I could post in a thread I had modded. I forgot to click Anon, and it let me.

  25. Easy fix by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 0

    Pass a law that all politicians' and lobbyists' vehicle whereabouts are automatically posted to a publicly accessible website 24x7x365. In fact, that type of thing would pretty much immediately fix all fucked up laws in the country. E.g., I wonder if the CA governor's mansion is subject to the meaningless, bullshit water restrictions he's inflicted on the serfs?

    1. Re:Easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need a piece of software called "Open Plate Scanner" which people can download and run on data from a camera outside of their house or any other location they have access to, then upload this data to the internet where anyone who cares to can download it and do whatever they want with it.

      Then a bunch of web sites will start tracking the location of celebrities, politicians, and anyone else the public finds interesting. They'll also track anyone they commonly associate with, which they'll know by tracking whose plates often show up in the same locations. Secrets will come out.

      Then you'll see a huge push against large databases compiled from what is otherwise free and open information that anyone is allowed to collect.

  26. Star agency by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The DHS, which has never caught a "terrorist" ever. At least before the fact. When passengers caught one after the fact (the "underwear bomber") and handed him over to the DHS, they claimed that "the system worked". It used to be that apologists could claim that there had been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9-11 and use that to support an argument that the DHS was a good thing. Well it's 2015, and there have been a few successful attacks now...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  27. America has not kept its promise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is just creepy thinking they track where I drive.

  28. LP Readers and IR by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Curious if the cameras that actually read the plates block the infra-red spectrum or not.

    If not, would it be plausible to ring the LP with high powered IR LEDs to effectively blind the cameras to the plate or no ?

  29. hidden cam found on post office grounds by doug141 · · Score: 1

    It disappeared after a news crew did a story on it.

    http://kdvr.com/2015/03/11/mys...

  30. Re:No. Data deleted after 14 days by Holi · · Score: 1

    No data deleted after 14 days. FTFY

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  31. Why do we have license plates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were required to wear a placard with your identification number every time you left your house, that would be an invasion of privacy, and the courts would throw such a law out. In our modern era, what's different about the ID number being on your car?

    When cars were new, lots of people were scared of them, and the government used that to get people to go along with licensing them. And now they can use that license to track people's movements. In another ten years, our computer systems will be powerful enough to take the data from cameras and patrol cars (which also have plate cameras these days) and give probability ratings for the location of any car in the US. Any protest group the government doesn't like can be tracked to their homes. Additional "conspirators" can be identified. And then a few alterations to the traffic light system can arrange some "accidents" to eliminate them in a way that won't arouse any suspicion. Or the fact that new cars are almost entirely computer controlled and have been demonstrated to have remotely-exploitable security flaws can be used to arrange a more personalized version of the same.

    The question to ask of any system is not "what good can this do if used properly?" but "What could this do in the hands of someone evil?"

  32. No car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem.

    True freedom is no car, no phone, no credit card.

    Get a horse.

  33. Sorry, impossible. by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"officials said they had determined they could address concerns raised by civil liberties advocates"

    Sorry, that is impossible, unless by "address" they mean "dismiss". If the government (and also private industry) in any way collects the information, it will be abused. Period. Regardless of what they say they will do, they will store the info for extended times, share it with all the black-ops agencies, index and associate it with all kinds of other databases, and search it at will, without a warrant, with impunity and without even audits.

    Anyone that thinks otherwise is just totally naive and living in some fantasy world. The only safe data is the data not collected in the first place. Wake up people- the only real way to ensure data privacy is to prevent its collection in the first place.

  34. At least they're consistent by bitterblackale · · Score: 1

    DHS: Pretending to protect 'Murica from the bogeyman since 2002.