Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Louisiana Governor Vetoes License Plate Reader Bill, Citing Privacy Concerns

Posted by samzenpus on from the stop-watching dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has vetoed a plan to acquire license plate reading cameras in the state. Law enforcement agencies nationwide use such cameras to scan cars and compare them to a "hot list" of stolen or wanted vehicles. That data is kept for weeks, or even years In some cases. Jindal wrote in a signing statement: "Senate Bill No. 250 would authorize the use of automatic license plate reader camera surveillance programs in various parishes throughout the state. The personal information captured by these cameras, which includes a person’s vehicle location, would be retained in a central database and accessible to not only participating law enforcement agencies but other specified private entities for a period of time regardless of whether or not the system detects that a person is in violation of vehicle insurance requirements. Camera programs such as these that make private information readily available beyond the scope of law enforcement, pose a fundamental risk to personal privacy and create large pools of information belonging to law abiding citizens that unfortunately can be extremely vulnerable to theft or misuse. For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill No. 250 and hereby return it to the Senate."

4 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Veto-Proof? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The skeptic in me says he vetoed it as political cover, expecting his veto to be overruled. The article says that the bill "overwhelmingly" passed both Louisiana chambers. This way he can say "I stood up for privacy and against big government" knowing that his veto wasn't going to stop it.

    Would he have vetoed it if it barely passed?

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    1. Re:Veto-Proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Jesus Christ cynic much? So pretty much anything he did you would find a way to give him no credit. Look, I'm no fan of Jindal, but he did the right thing and that's all that matters here. Trying to turn this into a negative is nothing but political BS, something we have way too much of in this country.

  2. How is this considered private data? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forgive me for being dense. But you are in a public area with a publicly mandated identifier on your publicly registered vehicle. HOW can you have any expectation of privacy? I could understand them banning a car driving around reading the number plates of cars on driveways or other private property but if you a driving on the road I don't understand.

    From what I gather as well it is not the recording of the information so much as the method that has been cited as the issue. So if they were to have someone sitting on the road writing your number plate down as your drove by that would be ok but an automated camera is not?

  3. funny bone by PineGreen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now we've tickled the American's funny bone. They consent to have their rectum examined by google, but when EU wants to stop google they get all pissed off. However, when a government they elected and can unelect every 4 years tries to save some money by using an efficient way of collecting fines, not biometric face scans, but letters and numbers printed in large font for, ehm, vehicle identification, they get all into freedom mode... :)
    (And yes, traffic fines in US are just a thinly veiled attempt at taxation, but if you vote republicans that can't raise taxes normally, you still need to bring this money in somehow, that is why I don't really object to paying them and you shouldn't either...)