Slashdot Mirror


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.

33 of 677 comments (clear)

  1. Invading privacy? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Invading privacy? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Invading privacy? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Invading privacy? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. The government is required to have a warrant to track your whereabouts. This is well established through cases such as United States v. Jones 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) where police tried to surreptitiously attach a GPS tracker to someone's car without a warrant, and Carpenter v. United States 16-402 S.Ct 585 (2017) which established that police require a warrant to obtain cellphone tower records.

    4. Re:Invading privacy? by whoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      People are not being tracked, the cars are.

    5. Re:Invading privacy? by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Invading privacy? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Invading privacy? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Invading privacy? by dcw3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re: Invading privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Those countries aren't "shitholes" you racist!"

      "We can't send them back! Their country is a shithole!"

    10. Re:Invading privacy? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Invading privacy? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      From a legal perspective, that's not true. Article IV of the Constitution is considered to protect your right to travel freely, and you can't have a right to travel freely if you are being tracked, because there are places that would inherently be embarrassing if you were widely known to have traveled there.

      The law has always recognized a difference between merely seeing that someone is in a place and tracking that person for a year to see where he or she goes. The latter, if surveillance is on an ongoing basis, is likely to cross the "reasonable" line and require a warrant (United States v. Jones). A license tracking system appears to be a prima facie attempt to sidestep that warrant requirement, and as such, is legally problematic.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re: Invading privacy? by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it isn't *your* data they are sending.

      You're in a rough position and I don't envy you; it must suck to have to defend a defenseless position... the above attempt was desperate and while your "logic" rings hollow, you really shouldn't feel too bad... but if shilling for the Military/Prison Industrial Complex gets old (or you simply develop some self-respect), the good news is that the economy's doing well and you can probably get a job tomorrow delivering pizza... you do have a license, right??

    13. Re:Invading privacy? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Invading privacy? by MrTester · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re: Invading privacy? by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Invading privacy? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:Invading privacy? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Every tire sold in the USA for 10 years has had an embedded RFID.

      Once they correlate those to your license number, it's over.

      But what do you care? You carry a personal spying device in your pocket.

      BTW repo men spend all day driving the streets/parking lots and automatically reading and recording every license number they pass.

      I'm considering just collecting a large bag of RFIDs and storing them inside a fender liner. That or a spark gap generator hooked to the ignition.

      I understand a ring of bright UV LEDs in a license plate frame will prevent most CCD cameras from getting readable data.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re: Invading privacy? by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    19. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    20. Re:Invading privacy? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    21. Re:Invading privacy? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:Same here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think that's a great idea.

    I mean, those damned spacecraft really mess up my Wifi. You'd think an advanced civilization would have things cleaned up a bit.

    Thanks for the tip.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Good thing malls are dying by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. East German Surveillance State has come by BoRegardless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here to the US.

    1. Re:East German Surveillance State has come by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  5. Re:Good for you sir! by Hydrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  6. Re:Good for you sir! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vikings: a little more than 1,000 years ago.
    Native Americans: a little more than 15,000 years ago.

    No doubt they Vikings did arrive on these shores; but the continent was already long since populated.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  7. Re:So, "immigrants"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My wife is an immigrant, is she at risk?

    Yes.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re:So, "immigrants"? by RedK · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technically, any legal infraction is reason enough to allow someone to have their legal status revoked.

    This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked. That means if you're born here, you have birthright citizenship and can never be made to be non-citizen. There's 4 specific things that can lead to "Denaturalization" :

    - Lying on your citizenship application.
    - Refusing to conform to a congressional subpoena
    - Joining a subversive group within 5 years of being naturalized (Think ISIS, Al-Qaeda)
    - Dishonorable military discharge.

    A simply felony or misdemeanor ? Nope. You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion. Which is it ?

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  9. Re:Abolish ice? Morons.. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  10. Re:So, "immigrants"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is false. In the US, for one, only Naturlized citizens can see their citizenship revoked.

    This is false. In the US, for one, your citizenship can be revoked for treasonous acts, or serving in the armed forces of a foreign nation.

    You are either grossly misinformed or fear mongering all over this discussion.

    You are grossly misinformed, and there's no alternative.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:So, "immigrants"? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil