ACLU Sues ICE For License Plate Reader Contracts, Records (sfgate.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACLU Sues ICE For License Plate Reader Contracts, Records (sfgate.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @12:03PM from the shrouded-in-secrecy dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for records about the agency's use of license plate reader technology, after ICE apparently failed to turn over records following multiple requests. In December, ICE purchased access to two databases of ALPR data, the complaint reads. One of those databases is managed by Vigilant Solutions, which has contracts with more than two dozen Bay Area law enforcement agencies. "We believe the other is managed by Thomson Reuters," ACLU laywer Vasudha Talla said. The ACLU and other privacy advocates have expressed concern about how this data will be stored and used for civil immigration enforcement. The ACLU filed two requests under the Freedom of Information Act in March seeking records from ICE, including contracts, memos, associated communications, training materials and audit logs. Since then, ICE has not provided any records, the ACLU said in the complaint, which was filed Tuesday morning in the Northern District Court for the Northern District of California. "The excessive collection and storing of this data in databases -- which is then pooled and shared nationally -- results in a systemic monitoring that chills the exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and association, as well as essential tasks such as driving to work, picking children up from school, and grocery shopping," the complaint said. "We have essentially two concerns: one that is general to ALPR databases, and one that's specific to this situation with ICE," Talla said. "The ACLU has done a lot of work around surveillance technology and ALPR, and we're generally concerned about the aggregation of all this data about license plates paired with a time and location, stretching back for so many months and years."

84 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 12:12 · Score: 1

Why are private companies even allowed to amass this data?
1. Re: what how now by fibonacci8 · 2018-05-23 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  That seems the wrong way around... Why are ICE agents allowed to connect this to an illegal alien issue when the fourth amendment still exists?
  
  --
  Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
2. Re: what how now by Darinbob · 2018-05-23 14:56 · Score: 2
  
  You realize that not ever non-legal action does not have the same level of severity or the need for the same level of punishment. Entering the country illegally is a very low level crime. And despite this, people who are detained are being locked up without due process for years at a time. In the meantime the police can't be bothered to investigate property crimes that are under $1000.
3. Re: what how now by Darinbob · 2018-05-23 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  Um, I grew up in a very conservative area, and the conservative farmers and ranchers were the ones hiring the undocumented workers. This is not a leftist plot. No one is trying to destroy the US. No one is trying to create open borders.
4. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  Oh Bullshit. You lie like a carnie. Yes, the intent off sanctuary cities is exactly to create open borders.
5. Re: what how now by karmatic · 2018-05-23 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  The information was neither searched nor seized. It was provided voluntarily. The fourth amendment does not apply to consensual acts - if you invite the government to search your home, you can't claim the search was illegal.
6. Re: what how now by karmatic · 2018-05-23 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  "Entering the country illegally is a very low level crime."
  No, it's not. It's a matter of national security.
  "And despite this, people who are detained are being locked up without due process for years at a time."
  This is a problem. The speedy trial act sets limits of around 70 days after indictment for the trial. We should be deporting people much, much faster. Justice delayed is justice denied.
7. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  White guys going around buying guns and shooting up kids in schools is a matter of national security but where is all the outrage, the billions in spending, new laws, enhanced vetting, increased enforelcement etc.on that?
  I'll patiently await all the examples of things being done around an actual issue that is costing hundreds of American lives annually, as opposed to the bogeyman story of some Brown people running through a desert to come pick grapes.
8. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Do you support massive fines Amd jail time for anyone hiring an illegal worker or subcontractor, say the farmers who use them to pick crops as sub market wages or the people who pick them up from Home Depot parking lots?
  No? Hypocrite much?
9. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  To the Left, the solution to school shootings is not to secure the schools and allow willing teachers to conceal-carry, it's to make the entire nation a 'gun-free zone' and make everyone just as insecure and vulnerable to violent nutcases as kids in schools currently are. The recent Texas school shooter used an Old-West style revolver and a shotgun and attempted to employ homebrew explosives, no semi-automatic firearms at all.
  None of the proposals from anti-gunners would have stopped him, but an armed teacher might have saved many lives. Hell, if it was known that some random teachers were armed he likely would neber have attempted it in the first place.
10. Re: what how now by Mashiki · 2018-05-24 01:27 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  This is not a leftist plot. No one is trying to destroy the US. No one is trying to create open borders.
  That's a key platform of many california democrats, and democrats themselves on the national level actively push policies like that. In Canada, the NDP and Liberals push the same bullshit. In Europe again it's left-wing parties pushing it.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
11. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Why would illegals immigrants have any âoeConstitutionalâ rights? They are law breaking invaders.
  Because the US Constitution spells out specifically where things apply to ONLY citizens, and outside of those specific items, the rest applies to everyone in the US' jurisdiction.
12. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, yes I do support fines and jail time for knowingly hiring an illegal, and I also support making e-verify mandatory.
13. Re: what how now by sjames · 2018-05-24 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the limitations of government powers in the Bill of Rights apply to the U.S. government wherever it may operate and are not limited to citizens.
14. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Sanctuary cities are just saying, not my jurisdiction, not my problem.
15. Re: what how now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  Really? If that were the case then please explain how it is the US government is able to launch missile and drone attacks against non-citizens without "due process"? Or how it it is actually legal to have coordinated raids to round up and arrest illegal aliens? Or freeze the personal assets of Russian oligarchs as was done because of the Magnitsky act?
16. Re: what how now by sjames · 2018-05-24 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  The U.S. government is able to wage war on foreign soil.
  But note that this is an issue with prisoners at Gitmo. The courts have found that they are entitled to due process and a trial, it's just being unconstitutionally ignored.
17. Re: what how now by Agripa · 2018-05-24 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  That seems the wrong way around... Why are ICE agents allowed to connect this to an illegal alien issue when the fourth amendment still exists?
  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for license plates (or faces) scanned in public so mass surveillance of license plates in public either does not implicate the 4th amendment or is "reasonable" under the 4th amendment.
18. Re: what how now by BlueStrat · 2018-05-24 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Do you support massive fines Amd jail time for anyone hiring an illegal worker or subcontractor, say the farmers who use them to pick crops as sub market wages or the people who pick them up from Home Depot parking lots?
  As a matter of fact, yes, I do support prosecution for anyone hiring illegal aliens be they farmers, suburban homeowners, or megacorps.
  
  Hypocrite much?
  Nope.
  How about you?
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
19. Re: what how now by Mashiki · 2018-05-24 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sanctuary cities are just saying, not my jurisdiction, not my problem.
  You mean "we're refusing to enforce the law, and implement roadblocks in order to stop you from enforcing the law." Why do you think so many individual cities, counties, towns and so on in California have joined the case of Trump's DOJ on the issue. And California's response to those towns, cities, and counties was to threaten them if they don't fall in line.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
this is an ACLU fundraiser by john+of+sparta · 2018-05-23 12:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

since "privacy" in public is a moot issue
1. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  With this kind of attitude, privacy will be dead in America soon enough, and you will be seeing how terribly oppressive America will become when the government and big corp had all the data about everyone.
  Isn't that what American have been saying about Chinese use of facial recognition by their police to find wanted criminals -- to oppress the population?
  There is huge difference from one end "being seen in public" vs the other end "everything you do in public will be recorded, analyzed, searchable and kept forever". Technology is make the far end more and more practical for those with the money.
  The Europeans have the right idea, your personal data is *yours*, that included data the could identify you. While as a fact of life your data would inevitably be recorded by others, that itself by no means imply other people can use that data however they want. If your business have no good reason to keep my data, you should damn well delete it, else you should tell me the reason upfront so I can decide if I still want to do business with you.
  Exposing this kind mass surveillance is a good thing. America is fortunate to have ACLU around.
2. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by spire3661 · 2018-05-23 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  So you feel you should be able to erase transaction records out of my database? Its not YOUR data, it is mine. I collected, sorted and stored it as a record of the business we have done together. It may be about you, but that is not the same thing at all.
  
  --
  Good-bye
3. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by bmimatt · 2018-05-23 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why is this downvoted? It's a coherent and valid point, quite far from any kind of fringe.
4. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Dare+nMc · 2018-05-23 16:46 · Score: 2
  
  This is about the federal government conducting surveillance, by collecting data on everyone without first having evidence of a crime.
  It is unconstitutional for law enforcement people to collect this data, but not (under federal law) illegal for a private company to do it.
  It seams obvious, if ICE cannot collect this data themselves, it doesn't matter how they get the data, if they maintain it; that is the same as collecting it.
  They should only be able to request the minimum data directly related to a open case, and delete any un-related data to a open investigation ASAP.
  ACLU should be allowed to verify this.
5. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by magzteel · 2018-05-23 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  This is about the federal government conducting surveillance, by collecting data on everyone without first having evidence of a crime.
  It is unconstitutional for law enforcement people to collect this data, but not (under federal law) illegal for a private company to do it.ACLU should be allowed to verify this.
  According to this article it isn't illegal and the ACLU knows it. They are trying to have it made illegal
  https://blogs.findlaw.com/blot...
  Here is the linked ACLU report
  https://www.aclu.org/files/ass...
6. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by karmatic · 2018-05-23 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, the government isn't conducting surveillance. Corporations are conducting legal surveillance (they require no warrant), and are then voluntarily providing it to the government.
  If the government had requested the surveillance be performed, or it was of a type and nature that it could only be used by the government, there would be a point to be made that it was government surveillance, and that the companies were acting in the stead of the government. Neither of those is the case. License plate data is used for recovering vehicles that are in default; the government is not prohbited from accepting lawfully gained information from outside sources.
7. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 21:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Its not YOUR data, it is mine.
  That is where Americans' and Europeans' view differ.
  If the program running on my computer could belong to some megacorp and just "licensed" for my use in limited situation (such as cannot install on another machine even if I destroyed this one), if the music on a CD I bought cannot be legally played in a performance, in a store, etc, THEN why can't MY personal information cannot be only "licensed", with my consent, for YOUR limit use?
8. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 21:39 · Score: 0
  
  THEN why can't MY personal information be only "licensed", with my consent, for YOUR limit use?
  Had an extra "cannot" there, but I guess the meaning was still clear enough.
9. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Cytotoxic · 2018-05-23 22:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't even think the government requires a warrant for taking pictures of vehicles on public streets. Actually, I know they don't. Nobody does. There is no expectation of privacy in public.
  Many states already have networks of license plate readers, both for law enforcement purposes and for things like toll enforcement. They use that data to track known criminals - like estranged parents who kidnap their own children.
  If they want to place a tracker on your car, they have to get a warrant. If they want to put you under heavy surveillance, they have to get a warrant. But just checking 'who is this" by running a plate doesn't require a warrant.
  What the database does is blur the lines between those last two scenarios, since checking the plates of everyone passing several points throughout a city ends up building up a database that amounts to almost the same thing as tracking an individual all the time.
  It would be weird and illogical to conclude that such databases are illegal. It would also be weird and illogical to conclude that our privacy rights can suddenly be eliminated because databases, cameras and text recognition became cheap.
  There's no easy and obvious answer to this one. Someone's rights are going to end up being stepped on either way.
10. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by spire3661 · 2018-05-24 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  If i have an item for sale, and you buy it from me, i have the right (and duty) to record that down in my records. Those are my records, not yours. You have no claim of ownership of my transaction records. In what universe do you think you can erase my transaction records? Its not your personal information, you dont own the transaction record, I do.
  
  --
  Good-bye
11. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Wrath0fb0b · 2018-05-24 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  THEN why can't MY personal information cannot be only "licensed", with my consent, for YOUR limit use?
  Of course it can. You can sell your personal data to anyone under whatever mutually-agreeable terms you see fit.
  The question is who originated the data. If you took photos of yourself, then they are yours to license. If I take a photo of you from a legal vantage point (e.g. not trespassing on your property or while you are in a changing room or taking a shit) then that photo is mine to license.
  No one believes that if a news reporter takes a photo of George Clooney at an event then the photo belongs to George Clooney.
12. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Dare+nMc · 2018-05-24 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  You're correct, collecting the data is legal I made a overly broad statement. Scanning a plate and checking for warrants in public is fine, holding that data for use exclusively used to investigate a crime with probable cause is also likely fine. ICE maintaining their own database for data mining, if that is what they are doing, is likely un-constitutional.
  As common as overreach is becoming, I think it is wise for the ACLU to assume the last thing is happening. My neighbor had his pickup stolen, and reported it to the police and directly to ICE. A month later it was found in a casino parking lot because it was reported as suspicious by the security there and was recovered with the plates still attached. Turns out it had crossed into mexico and back at least 3 times through numerous ICE plate scanners, without any action. Why is ICE scanning plates, if they are not using it to catch vehicles that have a criminal history?
13. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by sjames · 2018-05-24 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, once a concerted effort is made to put together a number of casual sightings of someone in public to track a person or persons, we do have laws in place. It's called stalking, and it's very illegal.
14. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by sjames · 2018-05-24 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you follow me around taking my picture, you are a stalker. There is a bit of gray area if I am a celebrity, but most people are not.
15. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by sjames · 2018-05-24 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's simple agency. If something is illegal for me to do, it is also illegal for me to hire someone to do the same thing for me.
16. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by sjames · 2018-05-24 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  So technically, I didn't commit murder, I just gave Lefty $10K to kill the victim. So I'm free to go, right?
  The police didn't search your house and crack your safe without a warrant, they just paid Larry, Darryl, and Darryl to do it.
  The U.S. has definitely not incarcerated you for 10 years without a trial, they just hired the cartel guys to do it for them.
17. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Dare+nMc · 2018-05-24 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  > It's simple agency. If something is illegal for me to do, it is also illegal for me to hire someone to do the same thing for me.
  Sometimes. Things like the 1st and 5th amendments of the constitution covers actions of the government. So you may be correct on whether the government can pay someone instead. But since it is legal for a private company to collect the plates and locations of every vehicle in the US. It is also legal for them to do data mining on that data, and it is also legal for them to report suspicious behavior to the police. It is probably not legal for ICE to do those same actions. But it does seam to be legal to offer rewards, and compensation to companies for helping law enforcement.
  So I definitely like that the ACLU is taking a look to see if that line is being crossed. And if ICE is using a technicality to skirt the law, hopefully that loophole is closed.
  Also many things require licenses, IE places where it may be illegal for me to carry a handgun for protection, I can hire a off duty officer to do it for me.
18. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by sjames · 2018-05-24 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Also many things require licenses, IE places where it may be illegal for me to carry a handgun for protection, I can hire a off duty officer to do it for me.
  There is a sublety you are hiring the cop to carry a handgun WITH a license. You can do that because if you had a license you would be allowed, and he does. The feds can't get a license to ignore the Bill of Rights.
19. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Cytotoxic · 2018-05-24 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  ICE has extremely broad authority. They can stop any vehicle in a "border zone" and search it without probable cause. Which makes sense at a border crossing, right?
  But what is a "border zone"? Get ready... this one is a doozy. Everything within 100 miles of a border is a "border zone". Do you live in a border zone?
  All of Florida, Almost all of Michigan, almost all of New York, most of New England and a majority of the US population lives in a border zone.
  They have also asserted authority over the areas around "border crossings", not just along the border. What's that? Airports, principally. So a 100 mile radius around every airport with international flights. So that would cover pretty much everyone else.
  So I really doubt that using publicly available information to find illegals is going to be found unconstitutional. Not if you can make pretty much anyone in most all of the US prove their citizenship without even probable cause. I know the court loves to pick their preferred outcome and back-fill the legal logic to get there, but this one would be quite a stretch. I think it is going to take some legislative action to alter this issue.
20. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Dare+nMc · 2018-05-24 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  >They can stop any vehicle in a "border zone" and search it without probable cause.
  If you meant they can legally, then you're incorrect.
  Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.
  The same rules for probable cause, and warrant still apply to the boarder patrol in this area, this zone is simply an area they are allowed to operate. Not allowed to pull over cars without cause, but are allowed checkpoints that force everyone to stop briefly, similar to a police DUI checkpoint.
  > So I really doubt that using publicly available information
  No, this isn't publicly available information. Exactly the opposite, it is privately held information, taken from the public.
21. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Agripa · 2018-05-24 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  If they want to place a tracker on your car, they have to get a warrant.
  The USSC ruled that placing the tracker counts as trespass so it requires a warrant. They are free to just follow you around or track you via license plate scanners.
22. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  You're wrong about 'no expectation of privacy'. I DO have an expectation of privacy, and you and everyone else should too. When you go around a corner to pick your nose, or bury your head in your phone and whisper for a private chat, or a whole bunch of reasons that YOU want or 'expect' privacy, then you should have it. If you actively look around to see how private you are and don't see anyone, then you should be allowed to "be private in a public space". This whole notion parroted by many, 'you have no expectation of privacy' makes me puke. Just say, 'YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY!'. 'Expectation' alludes to me having CHOICE. I have no expectation of privacy when I look around and it turns out I am in a diner with 20 people within earshot. Conversely, I have an expectation of privacy when there ARE NO PEOPLE within earshot when I whisper to protect my words. Cameras and listening devices should be commonly and purposefully made extremely visible to the public so that when they see no people they then can look for other clues in a public space so that they can avoid them FOR PRIVACY IN A PUBLIC SPACE.
  It's ludicrous to believe or parrot no expectation of privacy in a public space. Do homeless people in cardboard boxes also have no privacy because they are, be your definition, in a public space?
  Stop living with a nanny mentality and help protect our children's future from the tyranny of the oppressors of this world and tomorrows. Change group think and allow privacy in a public space. We all do it, therefore we do expect it.
23. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Cytotoxic · 2018-05-24 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  Well then you are just wrong. It is that simple. If you are walking down a public street, anyone can take your picture. You haven't got a leg to stand on. If they can see it with their own eyes from a public place, you cannot expect it to be private. Not only is this patently obvious, it is settled law.
  The only thing that made it even contentious was the fact that the state had decided you couldn't take pictures of their operatives in public. So police making an arrest would arrest people for videoing the encounter. And the politicians supported them. But the courts slapped them down. You have an absolute right to record things you see in public.
  There was a whole movement to fix that bit of overreach by the state - a lot of which is documented over at PhotographyIsNotACrime. Quite a few people went to jail fighting to make sure that you continue to enjoy your first amendment rights to record public officials in public spaces. And even though it is now settled law, the state continues to try to violate these rights (as is well documented by the nutty "right to photograph" crowd over at PINAC.)
  As for whether the state has the power to collect all this data..... well, anyone who would like to follow the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments would probably have to say no way. There's no grant of mass surveillance powers to the state in the constitution, so absent an amendment granting that power, it would seem that they lack that power. But as you clearly well understand... .that ship has sailed. The 9th and 10th are dead as doornails and the 14th is rarely used to rein in state powers these days.
24. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Wrath0fb0b · 2018-05-25 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Without more, no, that's not stalking.
  Anyway, this completely misses the point. Data that I create is mine to license irrespective of what the topic is. If I write a book on Obama's presidency (or Bush's) that book belongs to me the author, not Obama the subject.
25. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by Cytotoxic · 2018-05-25 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  The "public information" is "a car with this license plate is in this intersection right now". Anybody can look and see.
  The thing that is new (and privately held) is the ability to have a gigantic list of every car that drives through a long list of intersections at any point in time over the last five years. In years gone by that would have required paying someone to sit at all of those intersections writing down license plates and times. But now a computer can do it tirelessly for very little cost. So something that has always been "public" suddenly takes on a new character when collated and stored like this.
  The list may be privately held and available for rent, but it is a list of "public" information in that sense. You can't say "Hey! You aren't allowed to notice that I drove past the courthouse today!" And the privately held list is publicly available in the sense that if you are willing to pay, you can have a peek. It isn't secret in any other sense.
  And thanks for that link... there's a lot of action on this front right now. These checkpoints are not an issue where I live, even though I'm in a border zone. But I do know that people in western border zones feel that they are being used for more nefarious purposes. A checkpoint 100 miles from the nearest border is pretty sketchy to begin with, and I've seen a lot of activists who are suspecting that they are being used more for pretexts to other kinds of arrests - like drug interdiction, weapons charges, etc. I've seen quite a few videos from activists attempting to assert those supreme court rulings and being subjected to prolonged stops when they refuse unrelated questions like "where are you going? Where are you coming from?" and simply provide proof of citizenship. Like anything, there's the theory and then there's the reality. These are like Terry stops - ostensibly for one purpose, but in reality used for entirely different reasons.
26. Re:this is an ACLU fundraiser by sjames · 2018-05-27 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  That isn't universally true. Some information may be NDA or proprietary. Some information captured through questionable means could get you in a lot of hot water if you publish it. Also information you get under a false pretense may not be yours to publish.
Shhh... it'll be ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 12:27 · Score: 0

Stop fighting this. The systems are being built and tested. The key will turn, the net will descend, and you'll awaken from this nightmare of freedom knowing everything the Leader says is true. You know it's happening, you can feel everything around you changing, leading to here. It'll feel so nice not having to think. Trust the Leader.
Re:AI can help by 110010001000 · 2018-05-23 12:29 · Score: 2

Yes. They will do that as soon as they teach Siri to handle followup sentences properly. But after that the sky is the limit for AI!
The right to privacy in public? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 14:02 · Score: 0

Because you have no expectation of privacy in public and there's therefore no way to forbid them.
Seriously, you're basically complaining that police should not have the right to look around in public for known criminals. I'm just waiting for people to argue that nobody has the right to put their "private" face on wanted posters now.
1. Re:The right to privacy in public? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  Not requiring cars to have license plates displayed would go a long ways toward stopping this.
2. Re:The right to privacy in public? by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2018-05-23 17:45 · Score: 2
  
  There is a deeper strategy here.
  (1) Get information with the suit (and make a little publicity along the way)
  (2) With hard facts, be able to demonstrate that this private company selling information to ICE is dependent on local law enforcement feeding data into the system
  (3) Put the squeeze on local politicians about whether voters will support them helping ICE officials raid within their city
  In a lot of cities in California, this strategy could easily work, cutting down these surveillance providers at the knees. They have nothing useful to sell to ICE if city police departments do not give them the license plate reader information.
3. Re:The right to privacy in public? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, you're basically complaining that police should not have the right to look around in public for known criminals.
  No, not remotely.
  What's happening is that private parties aren't merely "looking around", they're writing down everything they see, keeping massive logs of what they've seen, collating the data, and selling that to the police. That data isn't just about criminals. It's about everybody. And last time I checked most people by far are not criminals. So there's only very little data on actual criminals in there by volume.
  It's not merely "I've seen this", but suddenly can be turned in "we've seen so much that we can backtrack any given license plate to where he's been in the last few weeks/months/years/decades". It's the scale difference that does it.
  And also that these parties aren't bound by the usual law enforcement safeguards, and therefore allow law enforcement to circumvent its safeguards.
  But hey, if you categorically refuse to follow this to its inevitable conclusion and instead insist on seeing it in its most shallow "nothing's happening here"-guise, there's nothing I can do to make you see. You don't *want* to see. Well, you'll get to experience instead, then. Too bad everyone else has to, too. Thus you're depriving them of a choice not to go there. Including me. Thanks so much for that.
4. Re: The right to privacy in public? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  That already exists in Germany where wanted peoples faces are blurred out hilariously.
5. Re: The right to privacy in public? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  More than likely law enforcement is not the source of the data. Repo agencies ride around using license plate scanners to hunt for deadbeats' cars. This generates a lot of data which gets monetized by sale to db companies, adding to the repo guys' bottom line.
What does ACLU stand for again? by slashmydots · 2018-05-23 14:45 · Score: 1

Oh yeah, the A is American. You know, the thing that people entering the country illegally aren't. They bill of rights doesn't apply to them either so they can be searched however and whenever they want. That said, plate readers do sort of hit every single citizen, which could be an unreasonable search issue.
1. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by drinkypoo · 2018-05-23 15:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They bill of rights doesn't apply to them either
  Wrong.
  The bill of rights is a non-exhaustive list of human rights. Granted, not all of the rights are extended to non-citizens equally, for example foreigners can only purchase a firearm if they have an immigrant visa, and can only "receive" them for sporting purposes — not for self-defense. However, some rights are theoretically extended to citizens and non-citizens alike. Historically, for example, the USA has extended the rights under the first amendment to all people.
  I asked DDG "which rights in the bill of rights apply to non citizens" and the second link it gave back to me was titled "Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights". However, it was surrounded by similar company. You could ask Google and see if it differs.
  
  That said, plate readers do sort of hit every single citizen, which could be an unreasonable search issue.
  We know what you can do with metadata if you have enough of it. It's dangerous. But we can't possibly stop our government from collecting it any more than we can stop Google. (They, too, have cars driving around with cameras on them...) So what do we do about it? I'd like to replace license plates with transponders, because they are ugly and affect aerodynamics. That would at least stop Google from recording our plate numbers (with good enough crypto, anyway.) But what can we do about our government?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by drinkypoo · 2018-05-23 23:36 · Score: 2
  
  For all the weeping and wailing against the border wall, I don't think the left understands something. If that wall isn't built in this decade, in the next decade what will be built is death camps.
  You have that completely ass-backwards. If they build the wall, look out, because the death camps are soon to follow. Trump has already echoed hitler in too many ways to count.
  
  At that point, the right will treat the Constitution the same way as the left does -- irrelevant ink spots on paper
  Erosion of rights has been bipartisan, son. You're way out in the bushes. We're not playing there.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  They bill of rights doesn't apply to them either
  Wrong.
  The bill of rights doesn't apply to me or you, even. It applies to the U.S. federal government's established powers as express limits to those powers.
4. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  The bill of rights is a non-exhaustive list of human rights
  YOU have it wrong. The bill of rights is no such thing. They are not a list of rights, they are list of RESTRICTIONS on the government and congress from infringing on rights that already existed before the bill of rights was included in the Constitution. They do not "grant" anything to the people, they just tell the government to keep off. If the, so called bill of rights did not list anything about freedom of speech, or freedom to bear arms, those rights would still exist.
5. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by slashmydots · 2018-05-24 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no, it does in fact exclusively apply to American citizens.
6. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Because Borders are so Hitler. Except for every other Non-European, Non-Western Nations. Borders are good for them. Just Not for white people.
7. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with this argument is that it means that all people of the world are American Citizens, and that doesn't make sense, and it's not congruent with the opinions of the founding fathers.
8. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  That's just silly. The guy is a populist blowhard, but comparing him to Hitler is just plain stupid.
  But I do agree that the erosion of rights has been a solidly bipartisan effort. Bush (USA Patriot Act) and Obama (Patriot II) conspired to wipe their asses with the 4th and 5th amendments. And even though they said they would never, ever use any of those tools to spy on Americans, it didn't take until the second president had those tools before they were not only used to spy on American citizens, but they were used to attack political opponents. Just about as far down toward the bottom of that slippery slope that they said we were fallaciously arguing about as you can possibly get. In fact, I doubt anyone seriously suggested that Obama was going to use the tools congress passed to fight terrorism in order to spy on the Republicans. Yet here we are.
9. Re:What does ACLU stand for again? by drinkypoo · 2018-05-25 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's just silly. The guy is a populist blowhard, but comparing him to Hitler is just plain stupid.
  He's a populist blowhard (like hitler) who is what he abhors (for hitler it was him being a jew, for trump it's him being a failure — we all know he won't show his tax returns because they prove he's in debt) and who says literally the same things hitler said. The comparison looks more apt every day.
  
  Just about as far down toward the bottom of that slippery slope that they said we were fallaciously arguing about as you can possibly get.
  Okay, so how far down the hitler slope can trump get? Not to mention his vp, who trump himself has "joked" would probably like to kill all the gays? Trump says his pussy-grabbing was hyperbolic, but that was the gospel truth. I suspect the same is true of Pence's stance on homosexuality.
  Trump is not an idiot, though he's clearly not a genius either. If he was, he wouldn't be in debt. (His Mar-a-Lago stays may get him out of it, however...)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
thanks ACLU by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 14:51 · Score: 0

ACLU going out of there way to protect illegal aliens but doesnt say anything when the presidents lawyer gets raided by the FBI?
ok.jpeg
Just looking for a list of companies to shake down by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-23 16:00 · Score: 0

As usual with the ACLU, if you invest in what their principals suggest, your lawsuits might go away. Until the next time...
Why does ICE need license plate numbers? by Daralantan · 2018-05-23 22:57 · Score: 1

What does that have to do with immigration?
1. Re:Why does ICE need license plate numbers? by Mashiki · 2018-05-24 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Ever seen the number of hit & runs with vehicles which are uninsured and owned by illegals in places like California, Illinois and Minnesota? It's the easiest way to track them, especially since they won't show up at court.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Why does ICE need license plate numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-24 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Ever seen the number of hit & runs with vehicles which are uninsured and owned by illegals in places like California, Illinois and Minnesota?
  No, I have not. Can you provide some sources and citations?
3. Re:Why does ICE need license plate numbers? by Daralantan · 2018-05-24 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  I guess to be fair, I did see a hit and run in my first year of college. Illegal Mexican guy who was drunk was driving on the wrong side of the road and hit a car of 4 college kids. They caught him because he tried to start a fight at the nearby gas station trying to buy more alcohol.
  So what... someone's car hits someone and runs, and they just assume that person is hiding an illegal if they are a foreigner?
FUCK THE ACLU by sproketboy · 2018-05-24 00:13 · Score: 0

They're Marxists.
a solution to the surveillance dilemma by John_3000 · 2018-05-24 04:42 · Score: 1

We could protect freedom by sacrificing privacy.
Let anyone collect data as massively as they like but require that access to that be free and open to all, along with all analysis tools. Not just the government, everybody. Sort of a GNU-like approach.
I don't mind you seeing mine as long as I can see yours