Malls In California Are Sending License Plate Information To ICE (theweek.com)

Presto Vivace shares a report from The Week with the caption, "And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online." From the report: Surveillance systems at more than 46 malls in California are capturing license plate information that is fed to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported Tuesday. One company, Irvine Company Retail Properties, operates malls all over the state using a security network called Vigilant Solutions. Vigilant shares data with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, and debt collectors -- including ICE, which signed a contract with the security company earlier this year, reports The Verge. "[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk, but invading the privacy of its customers by allowing a third-party to hold onto their data indefinitely," EFF wrote in its report, urging the chain of malls to stop providing information to ICE.

Comments

Invading privacy?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

Re:Invading privacy?

[Narcocide]

When you're a legal citizen, and then they inevitably also forward your data to a 3rd party consumer data broker to monetize it and track you without your consent, then that is an invasion of privacy.

Re:Invading privacy?

[jellomizer]

Ummm Yes it is invading privacy.
License Plates, and other ID, are meant to verify that you are who you say you are, and that such tools and devices are under the the laws and regulations of the particular state. They are not meant for tracking. If something is up like someone is wanted or a car is reported stolen, then we could put an alert for that ID and if it is found to be reported. However this is tracking everyone to see if they are up to something.
The government doesn't need to know where I am shopping, my political view. Because they are tracking innocent citizens. Because we are all Innocent unless are proven guilty. This warentless tracking is wrong.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're a legal citizen, and then they inevitably also forward your data to a 3rd party consumer data broker to monetize it and track you without your consent, then that is an invasion of privacy.

But it isn't *your* data they are sending.
It is the state owned license plate number that isn't yours which they are sending, and the owner of that data has given everyone permission to use their data this way.

Since you included a "when" clause that doesn't resolve to true, even you are agreeing this isn't an invasion of privacy.

There are plenty of other problems with this behavior that are actually problems, lets try to focus on those instead of making up problems that undeniably do not exist.

Re:Invading privacy?

[mjwx]

Really? You have a State Issued ID that MUST be affixed to your car, and you are willfully driving it and PARKING IT in public view, on private property. And that is invading privacy?

The invasion of privacy is where they send it to ICE without you doing anything wrong. Just because you can see my license plate, doesn't mean you have the right to do what you please with it. Same with the front of my house or what you can see through my windows.

Re:Invading privacy?

[WindBourne]

Or simply leave the states if you are an illegal alien.

Re:Invading privacy?

[whoda]

The car license plate does not identify the person driving the car, only the registered owner.

People are not being tracked, the cars are.

Re:Invading privacy?

[StormReaver]

It is perfectly legal for authorities to follow you around with a notebook.

Unless "authorities" have a reason to suspect you're committing a crime, the act of following us around with a notebook is police harassment. Note that the standard USED to be Probable Cause (as specified in the Constitution), but our Supreme Court has chipped away at our Constitution and redefined the requirement to be, "Reasonable Suspicion".

I don't understand this trend in America of throwing away our rights to police. Police misconduct is rampant, and too many people are encouraging and enabling it. I can understand not wanting to be the one to personally challenge an edge case when confronting police; but we have a very safe, very effective way to collectively shape our police via collective public opinion. Never before in all of human history has our country given us ordinary citizens the megaphone that is the Internet. We need to use it as a tool to reduce police misconduct, not condone it.

Re:Invading privacy?

[WindBourne]

Yes, go back home. the majority of illegals in America are here not because their nation is at war (i.e. refugee), but are here to make more money than they would in their own nation. Some of the illegals that I know continue to send money to Mexico and Brazil, to their wives, where they are buying up land for retirement.
Now, I do not report them because sending them home will solve NOTHING. Instead, I continue to write CONgress critters and push for e-verify on all jobs and to cut off all funding to any state that is giving money to illegals (other than emergency medical, nothing should be given to them).

And BTW, those illegals are here because they got shot down for immigration. Wny? Because they have no real skil. So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.

Re:Invading privacy?

[skam240]

Wow, some one with ideas about how to stop illegal immigration that are actually sensible. Making e-verify checks mandatory for employers is an infinitely more effective and cheaper means of stopping illegal immigration than that stupid money pit of a wall.

Re:Invading privacy?

[drinkypoo]

It's a basic premise of the rules of evidence that it's invalidated when a cop commits a crime to collect it, but not if a private citizen does it. Thus, even if it is illegal for private citizens to send this information to the police (which it isn't) it's still legal for the police to utilize it.

We need to make it illegal for private entities to send your personal information (including your license plate data) to the police if there is no suspicion that a crime has been committed, and we need to explicitly make it illegal for the police to use it when they violate this requirement. Otherwise, what is happening is almost certainly completely legal.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Green Mountain Bot]

So they come here, work jobs that simply do not pay their taxes, so that they undercut the legal workers, including other immigrants.

Seems like that's a problem caused by greedy, unethical employers. A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The other way is to prevent others from taking pictures and selling it to 3rd parties. Didn't you read the summary?

Re:Invading privacy?

[dcw3]

There's a big difference between being seen in public and being tracked, which is what's happening here. Law Enforcement is required to get a court order to track you, but this subverts that.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Khyber]

Doesn't work when you're an actual native-born American and still look foreign.

Looks like U lost all your honor, and your faculties, if such simple logic can escape you.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And that 3rd party consumer data broker could just as easily hire a teenager with a modern phone at $5/hr to get the same information.

PUBLIC IS PUBLIC. Where you go has *always* been public information, just the tracking has gotten more automatic.

Next you'll be suing tire companies for broadcasting the location of your car through the tire pressure sensor RFID

Re:Invading privacy?

[PrimaryConsult]

What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.

Re:Invading privacy?

[luis_a_espinal]

You can't have privacy when you drive around in plain view with a clearly readable personal ID number. The only way to get your privacy back would be to end the requirement to display a license plate number.

You have an expectation of privacy of where you are going or who is using your car (because the plate identifies the car and the owner, not who is driving it.).

Besides, the spirit of the law is that we are not to be under a surveillance system. We are not meant to be under constant mass surveillance unless there is an actual legal reason to do so (say, you are under investigation or something.)

Sadly we have been sliding down that rabbit hole without waking the fuck up. We are deep in it now.

Re:Invading privacy?

[MrTester]

Bullshit.
They aren't selling the fact of a license plate number (that is the state owned information). They are selling the fact that I was at the Southridge Mall in SouthCity from 1 to 4pm on Tuesday, and that I am a regular customer there spending an average of 3 hours a week at the mall over the course of a year.
Does it matter to anyone? I dunno.
But it damn well IS MY INFORMATION.

Re: Invading privacy?

[saloomy]

It doesn't put immigrants at risk. Immigrants have green cards, or visas, and are allowed to be here. It puts criminals at risk of having to avail themselves of the justice system, since they broke our immigration laws.

Happy to clear that up for everyone.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Oswald McWeany]

Good post and deserves to be up-voted.

I'd like to point out an additional reason why we don't want to live in a world where we are constantly tracked and monitored. Everyone eventually screws up and does something illegal; frequently without even knowing that what we do is technically illegal. They throw something away that is supposed to be disposed of in a specific manner. They don't realize that a certain document needs to be filed. They perform an act that, seems socially normal, but is actually illegal.

No one wants to live in a police state where everyone is a criminal- or has something over their head. I guarantee there is not an adult in this country that has never broken a law (even if unwittingly). When everyone is a criminal- authorities get to pick and choose who to arrest. This is what happened in the Soviet Union where they would make obscure laws just to have an excuse to arrest people.

When everyone is under surveillance, everyone is a watched criminal- and big brother gets to pick which people pay for their crimes and which don't.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point and still you were downvoted.

I *want* illegals to be reported and kicked out of the country and the news that any companies are helping out in this regard pleases me.

All of them or just the brown ones?

Re: Invading privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. The voice of sanity in this whole insane debate. It's not about ethnicity, background, race, color, or any of that. Followed the law vs. didn't follow the law. It really is that binary.

Re: Invading privacy?

[BlueStrat]

This. The voice of sanity in this whole insane debate. It's not about ethnicity, background, race, color, or any of that. Followed the law vs. didn't follow the law. It really is that binary.

Agreed. I will add that the current legal immigration system needs a massive rework and more funding.

Sadly, however, both sides are more interested in keeping illegal immigration as an election issue and front-and-center in public debate. After all, without such perennial wedge issues to keep the electorate's attention, they might start seriously discussing things like term limits and auditing and opening up the Federal Reserve to oversight. Gotta keep the proles stirred up, angry, and thus reduced to functioning on their lizard brain in very predictable and usable ways.

Strat

Re:Invading privacy?

[Maxo-Texas]

Your current location is your personal information. It's as key as your appearance which IS legally protected I.P.

This is a huge problem in that it can make it easier for a fascist government to control the citizenry.

We should really be subverting and destroying these cameras. We've accepted the possibility of being enslaved in return for security from theft.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Maxo-Texas]

and after they finish with the illegals, then you may be in the next group they come for.

I have a friend who is a strong 2nd amendment supporter and gun owner. But he's *finally* realising that the scenario where right wing police show up and confiscate his guns after a major right wing person is shot is a realistic possibility.

Mr. Trump, for example, has already shown he's willing to set aside the rule of law and a love for dictators who don't have 2nd amendment issues.

Re:Invading privacy?

[currently_awake]

If it's illegal for the police to do something without a warrant then it should be illegal for the police to hire someone to do that action without a warrant. If the American Federal Government is paying you to do something then (as an employee) you should be subject to the Constitution of the USA while doing it.

Re:Invading privacy?

[currently_awake]

The illegals are just tourists if they can't get jobs and collect welfare.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Areyoukiddingme]

The fact is that a vehicle with a license plate was in a public place during specific times. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy is such a public place.

Until this decade, I damn well did. Until the latter half of this decade, I damn well did. While it was possible to track me and everyone else in that public place sooner, it cost too much, so no one did. Now it's so cheap, any asshole can do it, and every asshole is doing it and that's not ok. I expect to be able to move around in a public place in relative anonymity, without being tracked by tens or hundreds or thousands of random jackoffs like you. And this is completely reasonable.

Re:Invading privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Legal citizen" has nothing to do with it.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights mentions citizenship. Always remember: if they can do it to illegal immigrants, they can do it to you. After all, how else could they even know who is illegal and who isn't?

Same argument holds true with "outright criminals" in place of "illegal immigrants". The correct hill to be fighting on is not the one with the standard saying that some people should be privileged and protected from the law. It's the one with the standard that says all people should be so protected.

Re:Invading privacy?

[HeckRuler]

I'm a big believer that, without a warrant, cops should be limited to what civilians can do. When the government does it, it's called tracking. When a civilian does it, it's called stalking. Both are illegal. Or at least should be illegal. We should have to deal with harassment from the cops any more than from ex-lovers.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: Do not come here illegally.

Re:Good

[RedK]

It is legal. Just have to follow the instructions.

If your first act in a country is breaking its established laws, then you don't deserve to be there. Follow the law, apply for proper Visas, make sure they are valid, and go through proper ports of entry.

Re:Good

[Oswald McWeany]

Don't quote a poem as if it's law. That's much like people insisting "God works in mysterious ways" is part of the bible.

It's not law. It's a national symbol. It's a national expression of what is (or was) important to the country. It is very symbolic of how most people in this country originally came here. The majority of Americans have ancestors who came here- not by visa- not by invite- but by fleeing persecution elsewhere.

But, let's forget history. Let's forget what this country is and was. Instead, let's just concentrate on ourselves and our own discomfort at people that look a little different to us, or speak a language we don't understand because we're too lazy to learn. Let's forget what and who built the country- because it is inconvenient to our bigotries and insecurities.

Good for you sir!

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal == Criminal.

They are not meant to be here and are actively breaking the law.

They should be turned over to the authorities like any other criminal.

Yes, it IS that simple.

Re:Good for you sir!

[Hydrian]

Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.

Re:Good for you sir!

[StormReaver]

Yes, it IS that simple.

It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:

1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.

2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).

3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.

4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.

Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.

While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Re:Good for you sir!

[MBGMorden]

You're not helping your cause there. Indeed, the Native Americans didn't (or rather, couldn't) prevent wholesale immigration into their lands, and as a result they were replaced.

If anything their plight should be viewed as a cautionary tale AGAINST illegal immigration.

Re:Good for you sir!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Who the heck is so ignorant that they don't know crossing an international border without permission is illegal?

Good thing malls are dying

[jfdavis668]

Since malls are dying, I guess the problem will eventually solve itself. Thanks Amazon.

East German Surveillance State has come

[BoRegardless]

Here to the US.

Re:East German Surveillance State has come

[jfdavis668]

Sorry to disappoint, the East Germans were never this good.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Illegal Immigrants

[sickre]

Why defend Illegal Immigration?

Like I needed another excuse...

[hyades1]

Does anybody believe only one real estate corporation is giving away or selling this kind of information? I don't have any legal problems, but I resent being spied on.

So thanks for giving me one more good reason not to visit the US. I'll just spend my money right here in Canada, where at least some pathetic vestiges of actual freedom still survive.

So, "immigrants"?

[Trailer Trash]

My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk

No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.

I have friends who are illegal immigrants. It's difficult and I don't blame them for being here. But they know the risk that they take by even being here, and they've decided it's worth it for their kids to grow up here instead of the home country (which is a complete shithole, not the fault of the US).

The left will only continue to hurt themselves by trying to conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration. "Immigrants" don't have anything to worry about unless they're also "illegal".

Re:So, "immigrants"?

[drinkypoo]

My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

Yes.

Re:So, "immigrants"?

[Nidi62]

My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

[Irvine Company] is putting not only immigrants at risk

No, they're not endangering anybody, which is the implication. They're making it more likely that ILLEGAL immigrants will be caught. There's a choice that they can make, which is not enter the country illegally.

Legal immigrants? Hell, these days even American citizens are at risk, and not just from the government. Besides the 92 year old Mexican man legally in the country to visit his children and had a woman beat him up with a brick, there was a woman recently in Illinois who was accosted for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt and was told to go back to her country. People don't even know (or care) that Puerto Ricans are American citizens. The current administration is trying to foster a climate where if you are Latino you are default not a US citizen. That doesn't end well.

Re:Same here

[Oswald McWeany]

The best t-shirt I ever saw said something like this (probably not verbatim):

Se vi parolas du lingvojn, vi estas dulingva.
Se vi parolas tri lingvojn vi estas trilingva.
Se vi parolas unu lingvon vi estas usona

Re: Same here

[jedidiah]

Unless you are a criminal, ICE really doesn't have any standing to hassle you if you have a Green Card. If you are a criminal, then you are by law subject to potential deportation.

Once you have become an actual immigrant, and are no longer "just visiting", then ICE no longer has any jurisdiction over you.

Data collection, aggregation, and distribution has been a thing for a long time now. It really has nothing to do with the tribal partisan hysteria du jour.

It's much like the INS in this regard.

Re:Same here

[i286NiNJA]

He's a troll. Look at his comment history.
At least he's doing it right.

Re:Abolish ice? Morons..

[Oswald McWeany]

Democrats who want to abolish ICE are literally handing Donald Trump his reelection on a silver platter.

Let's not enforce any border laws and let's see how that turns out. Idiots.

I'm not a Trump supporter, and I'm merely a centrist, but I agree that it is a foolish platform to take.

I'm against excessive and invasive persecution and hunting for illegals. I'm not blind to the fact that we need to limit illegal immigration. My main concern is that a lot of anti-immigration is down to bigotry and nationalistic sentiment that can escalate; and has rapidly escalated many many times in many many countries throughout history. It doesn't take long to get into some McCarthyistic witch hunt for immigrants, and start finding reasons to mark legal immigrants as criminals for obscure rules and start deporting them.

It's not ICE that I oppose- ICE Is important. It's the racist sentiment behind a lot of the actions of some of the laws that I oppose. It is the nationalism that could escalate dangerously that I oppose. The more fervent the head-hunting for illegals, the more likely that legal immigrants get caught up in this- either accidentally or deliberately. Already, there are plenty of stories of legal aliens being arrested and detained for months because they're mistaken as illegals.