The US Government Is Using Road Signs Showing Drivers How Fast They're Going To Capture License Plate Data (qz.com)

Zorro shares a report from Quartz: According to recently released U.S. federal contracting data, the Drug Enforcement Administration will be expanding the footprint of its nationwide surveillance network with the purchase of "multiple" trailer-mounted speed displays "to be retrofitted as mobile LPR [License Plate Reader] platforms." The DEA is buying them from RU2 Systems Inc., a private Mesa, Arizona company. How much it's spending on the signs has been redacted. Two other, apparently related contracts, show that the DEA has hired a small machine shop in California, and another in Virginia, to conceal the readers within the signs. An RU2 representative said the company providing the LPR devices themselves is a Canadian firm called Genetec.

Comments

Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

When you apply for your driver's license, you agree to certain terms. These terms are not negotiable. You drive at the pleasure of the state, not the other way around.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Which state is the DEA a part of?

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[SuperKendall]

That is true, but the question is do you have a right to privacy (not being tracked) as you drive? I personally think you do not have a right to any privacy while in public spaces (like roads), but I can see the argument for it and most people think of it as a right.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's some serious Gubbment shilling going on there... Which TLA do you work for (or are greased by)??

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no you don't.

1) In America, the State makes rules at the pleasure of the voters. Full stop. They do not have ANY powers that are not granted from the voters. If you say the state has the Natural power to limit my actions you are wrong. I do NOTHING at the pleasure of the government or all this is just a farce.

2) These terms ARE negotiable. That's why we elect representatives to change our laws.

3) Where are you from?

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me how may people don't know or understand the simple concept you just explained. Totally 100% correct!

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[schwit1]

I would say this SCOTUS ruling does not support that statement:
United States v. Jones - Wikipedia
" using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment."

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[mandark1967]

Seeing as how federal funds are used to improve roads in all states., pretty much all of them.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Stephen Portsafe]

You're talking about the original US, not the current bankrupt corporation? http://www.serendipity.li/jsmi...

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

When I applied for a driver's license, it was over 30 years ago. The terms I agreed to certainly were not to succumb to total 24-hour surveillance, since the technology wasn't really in popular use at the time.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the higher point: The state exists at the pleasure of the citizens, not the other way around.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Federal government can't contract their way around the law. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which is a COMPACT (Far above the power of a contract) specifically states that any power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people.

Not only is this yet another example of DRUG ENFORCEMENT trying to usurp power in violation of Title 42 and title 18 of the U.S. Code, but there are plans now currently in action that will take control back away from federal government and put it back in the hands of the states where it belongs.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

USSA

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not completely accurate.

It's called jurisprudence which are the rules of how laws apply.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land which is a COMPACT (Compacts are above contracts) between the States and the Federal government. Congress can't pass a law that trumps the Constitution, only a Constitutional amendment can do that and that requires ratification by the states.

The 10th Amendment says any power not granted to the federal government by constitution is reserved to the states or the people.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the courts have allowed the Federal government for decades to do things outside its scope and power. The limitation of the Federal Government's power listed in the constitution no longer has any relationship to what the government does, and our judges do not care.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[geggam]

You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.

That somehow is because we let them. You only have rights as long as you protect them from the govt. usurping them

Keep in mind the constitution strictly defines the limits of the federal govt and the 10th amendment declares this quite clearly.

Hint... everything not prohibited by law is a right ;) We let them pass laws removing our rights

So you dont have to google it... the 10th

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

which is a COMPACT (Compacts are above contracts)

I love me some good lawyering. Just find the True Name so that you can invoke it and gain power over it.

Now repeat after me. "I am a citizen of the Several States, not a United States citizen!" Bam! Now you're no longer a 14th Amendment Citizen, and you don't have to pay income tax any more! If the IRS man comes, just repeat that to him exactly word-for-word, and he will be rendered powerless. Not much different from any other malicious spirit in folklore.

(I don't mock federalism, but I can't help but to poke fun at the idea that words mean anything to the ruling class other than what the ruling class says they mean. Revolution by the people is a philosophical position, the implementation of which requires cold iron, and mere words won't do jack shit themselves against the armies of the ruling class.)

Captcha: reelects

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say this SCOTUS ruling does not support that statement:
United States v. Jones - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
" using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment."

So, that specific ruling was about attaching a device directly to someone's car, and being told they need a warrant which they didn't bother to get. As a result, that specific case got tossed, because the police essentially trespassed without a warrant and without having demonstrated probable cause to a judge ... ie, an Unconstitutional Search.

This bit of evil is to surveil everybody, and just claim a blanket exemption of "in the public view".

Basically, if they monitor everyone, they don't need to have to worry about warrants for specific people. This is the legal equivalent of "collecting the metadata" on telecomms, which the courts have already upheld.

The DEA has now decided that they will just hoover up all information they can get, and figure it out later. Which could have the effect of making investigations retroactive because they've already collected all of the information about you and can sift through it at their leisure ... no doubt by also demanding your information from cell carriers, ad companies, and everyone else who is tracking what you do.

Welcome to the surveillance state, it's only going to get worse from here. Expect every agency to start this kind of bulk collection of everybody, everywhere they possibly can, and can all be cross referenced and collated.

Honestly, the old Soviet countries would be proud of just how much the US has become a surveillance society. And they'd be laughing at just how many Americans are OK with this. Honestly, 9/11 did more to unwind freedoms than several decades of the Cold War ever did, and this shit keeps getting more normalized.

Papers please, comrade. Keep cowering as we keep sending those amber alerts to keep everyone in a state of panic.

Not so Free these days, and definitely not so Brave.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[cob666]

You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.

Please provide corroboration

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[houghi]

That is all nice that it is considered a search. Now what? And by that I do not mean what it should mean. I mean what the actual result is in real daily life.

If there is no acountability for those who abuse it, it is meaningless.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[orlanz]

According to precedence and all of the recent SCOTUS judges, the government is in violation when they invade a layman's general "expectation of privacy". Some of the justices (4?) go beyond that by bringing an expectation of property and trespass of to data collection.

Looking through the window of a car isn't a violation, but having your GPS position noted every hour for days would be. And all that means is that a properly scoped warrant is required.

So currently we are pretty well off. That doesn't mean the government doesn't violate things but it's a do-and-seek-forgiveness type of world.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

States revoked the right to drive by legislation. The right to drive was upheld by courts for decades.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[DigressivePoser]

Abortion is a good example. Nowhere in the constitution does it protect your right to have one. It should be up to the individual state to decide. Having said that, I support abortion rights and think the constitution should be amended to protect them.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, it still is a right. Only a judge can take it away.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Miamicanes]

The loophole is, there's nothing in the constitution that says the federal government can't tax citizens directly, then use those funds to bribe/cajole state governments into delegating powers implicitly reserved for states TO federal agencies as a condition of receiving those funds. That's part of the reason why the constitution originally didn't allow the federal government to tax citizens directly. Previously, Congress determined how much each state owed & states had to pay it, but states viewed the funds they paid to the federal gov't. as "their" money to begin with & bitterly resented strings placed on funds "given" back to them (or spent elsewhere). Direct taxation flipped the equation & power balance in favor of the federal government, and more or less directly enabled the federal government's scope to grow to its present size.

That's not to say it's entirely a bad thing. Expanded federal scope is a major reason why an American can move to pretty much any state without having to worry about having his life thrown into relative chaos. If states imposed the equivalent of waiting periods on new residents for what are now federally-funded benefit programs, it would be economically impossible for poorer Americans to relocate -- even if in the long term, they'd be better off. Long-term improvement means little for people like a poor single parent or disabled adult if the short-term consequences would be homelessness, hunger, and/or lack of medical care. Even for more average Americans, the "paperwork cost" of moving to another state would be a significant barrier to moving... even something as trivial as moving 2 miles to get a new apartment that's on the "wrong" side of a state line.

Federal funding is also why we have roads like I-94 across North Dakota. ND probably doesn't get enough direct benefit from it to have spent its own money building a freeway to Montana, but the net long-term benefits to other states (like having a good route between Minneapolis & Seattle) make it worthwhile. For a vivid illustration of what things USED to be like, notice the routes of I-80 & I-76 at the Ohio-PA state line. They're the original Ohio & Pensylvania Turnpikes. Neither state could agree where they should meet, so they both just picked their own routes & dumped into old roads at the state line... approx 10 miles apart. That used to be the norm... good roads within some states, but poor long-distance continuity ACROSS them. Every state line was a detour & traffic jam... and most state governments were ok with that (because getting two states to cooperate on ANYTHING is hard unless you have the feds waving cash under their noses to MOTIVATE them to cooperate).

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about the original US, not the current bankrupt corporation?

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmi...

You mean the original US where only white male land owners could vote? sounds like status quo to me, only the wealthy have had power in this country from the beginning to now.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. Driving is a licensed and contractual privilege. And the right to bear arms equal to the arms of our governing military is a right we have taken from us. But what about our right to privacy?

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Most people think of it as a right that they should have. But they do not actually have it, as the current laws exist.

Unless you were a friend of John Gotti or personally attracted the attention of the police chief, tailing people 24/7 was too expensive to be practical...ten years ago.

Now tracking every car going down every major road in every metropolitan area is within reach, and perfectly legal. It is only a question of police department budget.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[MooseTick]

"Nowhere in the constitution does it protect your right to have one."

The same could be said for a root canal or an appendectomy. The Constitution doesn't explicitly list all the rights it protects.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is a commercial term. The state can regulate commerce. Personal transit can't be regulated by the state and doing so is unconstitutional.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

USAA

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.

Please provide corroboration

Ask and you shall receive.

At common law, driving is considered part of a generalized "freedom of movement". You will note from the linked article that the Founders considered freedom of movement so essential to liberty that it didn't require an explicit enumeration; hence it's covered by the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People") and the Tenth Amendment (referenced in the GP above).

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[eth1]

You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.

No they didn't...

I can drive all I want without any license, speed limits, vehicle standards, etc. - on my own private property.

Driving on taxpayer-funded public roads, however, is not a right.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[DigressivePoser]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government. Anything else not explicitly stated in the Constitution are granted to the States.

In your example, root canals and appendectomies are allowed in all 50 states. On the flip side, medical marijuana is allowed in some states but not others.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[liquid_schwartz]

Sadly, the courts have allowed the Federal government for decades to do things outside its scope and power. The limitation of the Federal Government's power listed in the constitution no longer has any relationship to what the government does, and our judges do not care.

What you mean to say is that the Federal courts, including the Federal Supreme Court, have allowed the Federal government free reign. Since the Feds get to decide the limits of their own power is it any surprise that they generally side with themselves and not the states? Doubly so after FDR successfully bullied the Commerce Clause to be applied to literally anything.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s still a right... on your land, not on everyone elseâ(TM)s without permission.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right to throw a punch ends at your neighbor's nose. Streets are intrinsically used by multiple people who also have rights, including pedestrians who would be killed if you don't have to periodically prove you can drive safely.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, no where in the link provided is driving mentioned as a right, Flying is, but not driving. I would say the link you provided does not support the position you claim.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a new part of the 2nd. And it wasn't until 2008 that the 2nd was ruled an individual right.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not true. Suffrage was expending in the original US before the incorporation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

But the original US, to all intents and purposes, disappeared when the corporation silently took over in 1871. Everyone who became a citizen of the corporation traded away their rights for mere privileges.The corporation proceeded to go bankrupt in the 1930s, which enabled the connivers to then turn every citizen into a debt slaves.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

I REALLY hope you are not a lawyer, since you can't even seem to read a Wikipedia article correctly.

The common law general right to freedom of movement that pre-dates the constitution was fully interpolated into federal law under the Crandall decision in 1823, before the introduction of the automobile. As such, even if you can say that it protects modes of travel, it would only do so with ones that existed at the time of the decision, i.e. walking, driving a carriage or horse, which is qualitatively different in terms of risk to the public weal from automobile driving. The fact is that it didn't even at the time, as there were plenty of laws regarding the condition of carriages that could be driven on public roads, boats in interstate commerce, etc. in in the interest of public safety that continued to be regarded as perfectly legitimate. And in Hendrick,, the Court affirmed that laws written putting restrictions on driving automobiles were perfectly valid.

Why? States under the general police power (also a well-established portion of common law) have always had the power to regulate activities that impact the public weal. And guess who it is that licenses drivers? That's right, the individual states, i.e. the ones delegated that very power by the very 10th Amendment you cite, not the federal government.

And no, it was not courts that "ruled away our rights." It was elected state legislatures that enacted legislation regulating certain modes of travel, which courts upheld as legitimate exercises of the general police power.

As a funny aside, since federal laws trump state ones under the Supremacy Clause, federal employees are perfectly free to drive on public roads without a license while conducting business for the federal government. That's right, your postal carrier doesn't need a license to drive that van that pulls up in front of your house every day.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a fucking psycho.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Your rights don't disappear because the government decided to pave the road with stolen funds from 'taxpayers'.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you listening to yourself. Until you harm another you haven't violated anyone else's rights. Supporting this is supporting the use of violence against peaceful and more often that not safe motor vehicle operators.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here to say that. When I started driving 25 years ago, I did so with the understanding that it is a privilege and is subject to conditions.

I'm actually OK with them doing this if it helps them to catch more criminals.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that elected officials (from AFTER the incorporation of the United States under the Artices of Confederation) voted to create the Federal government. This means we the people (at the time) elected representatives who got together and, with the full knowledge and support of the voters, changed the constitution so that we had a strong central government to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the common defense?

You know this, right?

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[dcw3]

While the Constitution only expressly addresses the crimes of Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting, Findlaw expressed the following...

There are federal laws against murder and robbery of course, and these laws have been justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, as well as the Commerce Clause.

Since murder has been addressed, I can understand anti-abortion proponents claiming it's covered.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[dcw3]

I'd argue that it's essentially stalking. If someone were to follow you around all day in public places, would you be okay with that? I'm not.

Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right

[dcw3]

We're surrounded by taxpayer-funded roads, so you've effectively blocked off that right.

Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right

[Agripa]

That is true, but the question is do you have a right to privacy (not being tracked) as you drive? I personally think you do not have a right to any privacy while in public spaces (like roads), but I can see the argument for it and most people think of it as a right.

The USSC cases United States versus Jones and Carpenter versus United States have some bearing on this. Neither decision relied on the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment but a future case involving ubiquitous surveillance which undermines a general expectation of privacy might and there appears to be some support for it.

And more!

[jbmartin6]

They are also collecting photos of me making an obscene gesture at every one of these signs I pass.

Re:And more!

[Oswald McWeany]

They are also collecting photos of me making an obscene gesture at every one of these signs I pass.

Around here most people try and get the high score when passing one of those electronic speed signs.

Re: And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, here too. But we gave up when we figured out they only have two digits.

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live? I'd like to move there. Around where I live, people drop to 10 or 15 mph when they come up to one. Which is really annoying because they were usually already doing 10 under. On a single lane road.

Re:And more!

[freeze128]

I once flipped-off a BING mapping car.

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

The one outside my place of business has levels.

Level 1: Welcome to . . .
Level 2: SLOW DOWN!
Level 3: UNSAFE SPEED!
Level 4: WHERE'S THE FIRE?!

We all try to get to WHERE'S THE FIRE on ever pass.

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live? I'd like to move there. Around where I live, people drop to 10 or 15 mph when they come up to one. Which is really annoying because they were usually already doing 10 under. On a single lane road.

The one on my road is set for 33 mph and flashes bright red and blue lights. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen and make a point of driving 35 past it every morning.

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably don't want to encourage drivers to go fast for amusing comments, but maybe we can the opposite -- you get a joke or something if you are within 2 MPH when passing the sign.

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are also collecting photos of me making an obscene gesture at every one of these signs I pass.

Around here most people try and get the high score when passing one of those electronic speed signs.

Remember folks: if the traffic lights are sycn'd for 40, they're also sync'd for 80....

Re:And more!

[houghi]

Woah, carefull. We have a real anarchist in our mids. HACK TEH PLANET!

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

They already patched all the ones here to just say "Slow Down" if you go 5+ over, that way people can't see how fast they can go anymore.

Will the DEA keep the recorded speed with the License plate # for future changes in laws? :)

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a sign that flashes red/blue like that where I live too. As though people are supposed to believe that they're being pulled over by a stationary sign.

Re: And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hack da g1bson

Re:And more!

[ausekilis]

Where I grew up the common story was to remove your license plate and pants, then rip by speeding cameras on your motorcycle.

I can only assume the police found it amusing to get pictures of the great white streak. Not sure if tickets were ever actually given.

Re:And more!

[Gr8Apes]

Remember folks: if the traffic lights are sycn'd for 40, they're also sync'd for 80....

Too bad the speed limit's 30.

Re:And more!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my suburb of nanny-state AU they've just put up a couple of the vaguely accurate ones (solar powered, two digit displays). Green if you're below the 50km/h limit and flashing red if you're even 1km/h above (that's 0.6mph for the three backwards countries ;-)). The inaccurate ones have for years been saying SLOW DOWN if you're above the limit. Or 20 below. Or 10 above and 10 below at the same time. But hey, "safety".

Re:And more!

[dcw3]

I'd be happy if our traffic "engineers" would get off of their asses and sync any of our lights. We've got some of the worst traffic (DC suburbs) in the nation, and it's rare to make it through consecutive lights anywhere around here.

Re:And more!

[Gr8Apes]

I've driven up there. The biggest problem IMNSHO is the fact that there was unregulated and unplanned growth coupled with no new road building and one of the worst layouts of a suburban oriented city road system on the planet. How many north/south or east/west thoroughfares are there? A fraction of any similar metropolitan area. NYC at least has a grid system in place. Boston is reasonably compact and more grid-oriented as well. LA, well, there's enough roads to get to where you're going, it's just that there's too many cars on the road with non-drivers in control, kind of. Houston - if you could only find a street that wasn't half blocked for construction. Those are some of the worst US traffic cities I've driven through.

Re:And more!

[dcw3]

You nailed it, but I'd add that our Metro system also sucks balls. They're finally expanding it to areas that should have been completed forty years ago.

Re:And more!

[Agripa]

Around here most people try and get the high score when passing one of those electronic speed signs.

How are the shots counted? By caliber? Closest to the center? Tightest group?

Outside their responsibility?

[sheramil]

How the hell is it the DEA's responsibility to monitor driving speeds? If someone's driving 2 miles per hour over the posted limit do they take this as evidence the driver is hopped up on methamphetamines and they have the right to pull them over? Or if they're driving 3 miles per hour UNDER the posted limit, they claim the driver is stoned and shoot the tires out?

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can stop a car for speeding and then do a drug search.

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is it the DEA's responsibility to monitor driving speeds?

Mission creep, plain and simple.

The DEA, ICE, and everyone else are just continually ramping up surveillance on everything and deciding they need to monitor everybody just in case.

See, the DEA doesn't care about how fast your going, they're just piggy-backing the plate readers on the things which tell you how fast you're going ... this way they can monitor everybody. In this way, they can know where everybody goes in case they need to charge you with something later.

There will always be that idiotic segment of society who just think "well, they're doing this to keep me safe, so it's awesome". The problem is those people are incapable of realizing how much their own rights are being eroded in the name of Keeping You Safe From Bad People. The classic "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" line of fascists and tyrants, accepted by idiots who haven't through it through.

Land of the free? Home of the brave? Not so much. Americans have been conditioned since 9/11 to just blindly accept this shit.

Thirty years ago this would have caused outrage in America, now everyone just goes back to the Kardashians and hopes the government is going to keep them safe.

At the end of the day, this is just the continuous surveillance state ratcheting up, ensuring they monitor everybody at all times -- and the ad and analytic companies can be secretly tapped to fill in the blanks about every aspect of your life. The dystopian state marches on.

Papers please, comrade ... the State is watching you.

Re: Outside their responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pull up video of you speeding 25 years ago to make sure they always have just cause.

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't believe they can. They can't even delay you "too long" waiting for a drug sniffing dog to arrive.

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not without a warrant because I would demand they have one.

Re: Outside their responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Mod +5 funny.

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[AHuxley]

The road side equipment collecting driver face, passenger face, cell phone and a front /back license plate reader along main US roads will get noticed.
A chat down citizenship question to get induce voice print? Cell phone collection?
People upload video clips about the amount of innovative and new gov/law enforcement digital collection they see on the side of their main roads.
Put some of that collect it all equipment in more normal looking trailer-mounted speed displays and fewer questions are asked.

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[dcw3]

It's like a gateway drug. If you're a speeder, you're also probably a junkie.

Re:Outside their responsibility?

[Agripa]

How the hell is it the DEA's responsibility to monitor driving speeds?

If they are going faster than the speed limit, then that is probable cause to stop and search the vehicle for drugs. If they are going slower than the speed limit, then that is probable cause to stop and search the vehicle for drugs. If they are going at the speed limit, then that is probable cause to stop and search the vehicle for drugs.

Only drive off road

[jfdavis668]

I'm giving up on roads. From now own, I will drive everywhere cross country. It will annoy my neighbors, but what the heck, I do that now.

When you let the government own the roads

[ravnous]

They get to set the terms.

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[mapkinase]

Right. Because private ownership would be so much better. You are an idiot. And the mod who upvoted you is an idiot as well.

Roads are natural monopolies. You do not have a choice on which road to take really. Do you ever see two parallel roads?

Die

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Because private ownership would be so much better. You are an idiot. And the mod who upvoted you is an idiot as well.

Roads are natural monopolies. You do not have a choice on which road to take really. Do you ever see two parallel roads?

County roads and federal interstate highways run parallel all the time. Private toll roads and county roads are also this way occasionally.

Die

Oh my.

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[jbmartin6]

Originally turnpikes and highways were built by private funding, i.e. some corporation was formed and people who felt the project was beneficial bought shares. In many cases, there was little expectation of real returns from the shares. The original NJ Turnpike for example. The Suez canal was built by private investment also (I think the French gov't was a large minority shareholder), that was a huge project, though technically not a road. I would agree, though, that the parent's implication that private ownership would somehow avoid the problem in this article is a daft notion, as anyone who uses the Internet knows.

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[jbmartin6]

And yes, I do see parallel roads. During holidays, out of state GPS users jam pack the state turnpike while locals all know to use the parallel route 295

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[GoTeam]

Yes, private ownership would be bad if applied to all roads. However, "privately" owned roads do sort of exist. Toll roads are often managed by companies in a somewhat private way. The roads are often cleaner and better maintained as well as having courtesy vehicles ready to help you with a breakdown, flat tire, or even a little free gas should you have been so silly as to run out. The premium you pay for these services is often insane. Here in Dallas (as well as other cities I have visited), we do actually have toll roads running in parallel to free roads. On parts of 635 you can pay for the toll lanes, or stay in the free lanes. Again, you'd have to be willing to pay the insane toll rates.

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they don't own the roads, I do. and when I paid my taxes I put terms and conditions on that money that it can't be used for any function outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

Everybody could "modify" the tax return (you know that little blob of text at the bottom of the form?) to reflect your restrictions on the federal government.

Re:When you let the government own the roads

[Anonymous Coward]

And they are often not cleaner nor better maintained. YMMV. In addition, laws regarding driving infractions are often different than public roads - for example, the Mass Pike speed limits are absolute rather than prima facie.

Also, don't forget, it is impossible now to travel many toll roads without being tracked. If you don't have Easy-Track, they'll photograph your plate and send you the toll bill (doubled, of course) by mail. Your travel movements will still be in a database somewhere, obtainable by divorce lawyers and the law enforcement community.

Star Spangled Banner

[pr0t0]

Now flies "o'er the land of the surveilled, and the home of the afraid."

Re:Star Spangled Banner

[Anonymous Coward]

The DEA is buying them from RU2 Systems Inc., a private Mesa, Arizona company.

Let me guess. RU2 stands for Russia II.

Re:Star Spangled Banner

[Anonymous Coward]

Now flies "o'er the land of the surveilled, and the home of the afraid."

Now That's What I Call Edgy, volume 10

They do not care how fast

[SuperKendall]

The point of these things is not to measure speed, itâ(TM)s to disguise tracking cameras as something else you normally encounter on a road and do not think of recording anything. They are trying to get a sense of where people are using cars that may be evading known traffic cameras.

Re:They do not care how fast

[garcia]

My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. Unfortunately, governments use these tools not for safety, as they claim--especially in the instances of speed/red light/LPRs, but for revenue generation. They send automated civil fines for speed/light violations (potentially taken entirely out of context with no recourse) or to fine owners for any number of violations related to license plates.

We have to decide what levels we're willing to accept as intrusion. Papers please are not acceptable to me nor are these civil, out of context, fines. YMMV.

Re: They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

The feds are? Seems disengious to me. That's the local level traffic enforcement. These are full electronic surveillance packages no doubt

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I see a speed display sign, I automatically assume my license plate is being recorded by a private company, paid for by public funds via the government, and re-monetized by the private company as part of a shadow credit/advertising profile.

Re:They do not care how fast

[garcia]

https://www.winonadailynews.co...

Depends on local jurisdiction.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it not occur to you to

1) travel below the speed limit
2) observe and obey traffic signals
3) properly license your vehicle

as a way to foil this government conspiracy to pick your pocket?

It's true, I am an old man, and I wear a hat when I drive.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

The DEA does not care about revenue generation. They don't care how fast you're going (though they might share that info with people who do care). The DEA wants to be able to track every car on the road. Surveillance cameras disguised as speed cameras is one way to build toward that capability.

Re:They do not care how fast

[garcia]

In order for the DEA to get information they want in other ways, they are likely to share these data with the local jurisdictions so they then can use it for revenue generation.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

The signs that this article describes don't seem to be of the revenue-generating variety. It's talking about the informational signs that are aimed at guilting you into slowing down, not the speed cameras that issue tickets if you're going too fast.

Re:They do not care how fast

[westlake]

My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine.

All modern governments are built on machines that generate revenue.. That is the only alternative to a forced draft of materials and labor. A strong federal government with independent sources of revenue was forged in the US because a loose confederation of states couldn't or wouldn't contribute enough money to keep the country afloat or do anything worthwhile like building a national system of roads and canals.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue...

Mine is.

Guess the camel is fully in the tent.

At the point the government can do anything it wants, because no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, owing to the fact that the government does anything it wants.

Sure it's circular. That's what they want.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Gavagai80]

I've been driving for 18 years, and my only ticket was properly issued by a human. Are law abiding citizens actually getting these automated fines with any frequency? It would be nice to see evidence that there's an actual serious problem before discussing what to do about it.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Ichijo]

That's true, the fines should be proportional to income in order to make them a true deterrent against reckless driving by wealthy people.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a mechanism for collecting revenue with the consent of the electorate. It's called Taxes.

Unfortunately, the same "libertarian" types who scream loudest about having to pay tax are the same ones who will hypocritically whining loudest when cash-strapped local governments resort to tactics like speed traps to generate revenue, followed by the inevitable abuses of cameras for bulk dragnet data collection.

But guess what? It's YOUR FAULT. Thanks for ruining it for the rest of us by refusing to pay your fair share, ya skinflints.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. ...

Since WHEN?!?!?!

Every government on Earth since the invention of money has been a "revenue generation machine" - only because that's what fuels what every government fundamentally is - a power-accumulation machine.

Before money they used brute force to accumulate and hold power. (Don't think so? What happens if you refuse to give the government you live under the money it demands? Yeah, it will revert to brute force and send out the guys with guns to lock you up.)

Re:They do not care how fast

[ausekilis]

We have to decide what levels we're willing to accept as intrusion. Papers please are not acceptable to me nor are these civil, out of context, fines. YMMV.

Where do we draw the line? There's thousands (tens of thousands? more?) of undocumented immigrants. Many are here pursuing a better life and will (hopefully) become documented and work toward citizenship. Others have less than noble goals. When is it okay to do something about the latter? Before or after they hurt a legal citizen?

Where in the DEA's list of responsibilities does it say anything about traffic fines? I could see local PD using these for that sort of thing - it's a mobile speeding camera. The fed has no jurisdiction for traffic management and enforcement. The best we could get from them is tracking foreign license plates, which I would argue is a *good* thing. See previous paragraph. I don't see it as any more of an intrusion than using Google Maps. So someone knows you passed 1st and Main on Tuesday around noon. So did dozens/hundreds of others.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Gr8Apes]

B. Speeding is dangerous and fucking stupid.

This is by no means a true assertion. There are plenty of roads where the speed limits are artificially low for no known reason, other than perhaps revenue generation.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Gr8Apes]

My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. Unfortunately, governments use these tools not for safety, as they claim--especially in the instances of speed/red light/LPRs, but for revenue generation. They send automated civil fines for speed/light violations (potentially taken entirely out of context with no recourse)

I agree they're not supposed to be revenue generation machines. However, I disagree on the red light cameras. They most certainly are a safety issue, and a way to confirm the lights meet the specifications for the speed limits on the road. Note that most states have a timing requirement on lights, and usually that includes the ability of an 80 ton truck to safely stop once the light changes. So by no means should a red light camera ever catch a car running a red light other than when someone does it intentionally. Just get T-boned 1 time by some numb-nut that thinks red lights shouldn't apply to them, and you'll change your tune on those cameras.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Joce640k]

Or you could try not speeding.

Re:They do not care how fast

[dcw3]

I think you'd lose that case in court. Equal protection and all.

Re:They do not care how fast

[dcw3]

I'm too lazy to look it up, but here in VA, red light cameras were shutdown. There was no standard for setting the duration of yellow lights, and I've seen the same in many other states. I'm not a fan of autonomous enforcement, but we do need to do something about the frequency of folks running them. However, to be fair, standardization should be required.

Re:They do not care how fast

[dcw3]

Or you could try not speeding.

Sorry, life's too short for me to pay attention to arbitrarily choses rules. I speed every day, and the time I save doing so is well worth whatever tickets I've received over the ~45 years of driving.

Now, if you'd like to debate the safety aspect, I'd be happy to. I only speed up to what I consider safe for conditions (weather, traffic, the vehicle's capabilities, etc.). I don't endanger others by tailgating, or weaving. I use my signals. And I'm experienced at high speed driving, including track and autobahn.

Re:They do not care how fast

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Yes.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/...

This is the light nearest me ticketed 2200 individuals (reducing average light-running by 200), while increasing the crash rate by 30%.

The average ticketer machine issued 1300 tickets, at $158 each, generating $205K per machine. 10 machines were installed in the first phase, generating $2M in additional revenue (ostensibly from lawbreakers).

Note, however, that the cameras, on the whole, decreased instances of crashes *and* instances of light-running while generating this revenue. As an implementer, you really have to look hard at this; they decreased crashes, decreased light-running, and generated revenue. I think that they shouldn't be legal, but they are certainly a cheap way to enforce the law.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

When the flow of traffic is 90, I'm going 90. It's unsafe not to do so.

Also, speed limits tend to be arbitrary, and the ones that aren't are picked with 18 wheelers hauling 50,000 pounds in mind.

Re:They do not care how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst for me was a parking ticket I got.

$12.50 it said. It also said to call this number to pay the fine, so I did.

Step 1 on the phone: plead guilty to the ticket, it's only $12.50, so yeah, I'll do that.
Step 2: By the way, there is a small processing fee of $60.
Step 3: Yell, bitch and moan.

Republicans Have Come To Roost

[Anonymous Coward]

And will get all up in your ass to do so. First, your women are raped because no one who matters will care, and second, your cars are raped because no one who matter will care. WHO'S NEXT?

I say Pete.

These are government roads

[superwiz]

Government also has people in cars with guns who can stop you and arrest on those roads, you know. You already have to REGISTER your car to drive it on a "public" (i.e. government) road. That means the government keeps track of what cars you own and such. Why should operating heavy machinery on a piece of land made by the government not come with no expectation of privacy? You wouldn't expect that you could operate a train and stay private about it. Just because cars are more versatile, doesn't mean the same principle doesn't apply. The only reason people care is that tracking cars used to be outside of the realm of what was possible. But the expectation of privacy that came with the fact no one cared to look was not the same a guaranteed privacy.

Re:These are government roads

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no qualms about the privacy...I just would like to know what data is being used for and how useful it is.

Re:These are government roads

[mapkinase]

I do not care about privacy. I can make my Google Maps history public right now.

What I care is when this information will be used to rob me by local government in the form of bullshit road fines.

Re: These are government roads

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take you up on your kind offer. Please post your Google Maps history. -PCP

Re:These are government roads

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not care about privacy.

Ans that's why we can't have nice things....

Easily resisted

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing some duct tape and a stroll at night time wouldnt fix. Eventually theyll assign a police officer to guard them, maxing the whole endevour expensive. Make it expensive enough and theyll stop

Re:Easily resisted

[kenh]

Make it expensive enough and they'll stop

Or raise your taxes.

Re: Walk Away from Corporate Social Just-Us

[Anonymous Coward]

please walk away, we will be better off without having to tolerate your bullshit

Avoidance apps

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until Waze starts reporting known DEA camera traps so that people can reroute? There's already apps that can help avoid police speed traps/checkpoints, wouldn't be surprised to see new ones to avoid these new traps.

Out west

[AntronArgaiv]

I suspect they will have issues with bullet holes in the cameras in the western states.

Re:Out west

[Oswald McWeany]

I suspect they will have issues with bullet holes in the cameras in the western states.

I remember in college a friend of mine and I used to like going on road trips just randomly taking back roads anywhere. One night we ended up all the way over in Alabama (from SC) taking only back roads all the way there. We had a huge laugh at the "Welcome to Alabama" sign- it was right out of a stereotype- riddled with bullet holes.

Re:Out west

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the camera will just go missing.

Re:Out west

[pak9rabid]

You city slickers are cute.

Re:Out west

[macraig]

If them cowboys is smart, they'll be cowards and shoot 'em in tha backside.

roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 when i

[Joe_Dragon]

roads are under posted just try to do the limit of 55 on I-294 when it's wide open.

and on a toll way they get each Plate in all lane

[Joe_Dragon]

and on a toll way they get each Plate in all lanes at the tolling points.

Psst

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMV already has that data, and the police can access it, your license plate is already not exactly a national secret. If someone is going 50 in a 25, I really don't have a problem with this.

Re:Psst

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt if any would have a problem with it for anyone going 50 in a 25. It's all the people going And all the municipalities that decide 25 in a residential is the way to go for that matter. Teach your kids to watch out for cars like all the rest of us did.

Re:Psst

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that 50 is an appropriate limit in a residential area?

Vandalize them

[mapkinase]

That's all. We should start a national campaign of vandalizing this bullshit good-driver tax.

It's very well known that all the speed controlling devices are located in the areas where people are most likely to speed and people are most likely to speed in the areas where it is the SAFEST to speed.

The parkway with a healthy forest devider three lane on each side that has typically 50 mph limit in California is getting a 35 mph speed trap for no reason but to rob the drivers.

Vandalize them. Destroy them. A la guerre comme a la guerre.

Re:Vandalize them

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, a majority of the people in the world hardly go over 3 mph, the fastest speed they can walk comfortably all day long. Surprisingly, they manage to keep themselves alive and have families. Even more surprisingly, their families are much bigger than ours.

That defeats the claims that children are expensive and also that you must go faster than everyone else in order to be most fit for survival. Also, computer simulations show that roads with cars evenly spaced are capable of carrying twice as much traffic as ones with tailgating drivers who speed and have to slam their brakes at intersections causing wolf packs of cars to develop.

Fuck vandals and speeders and tailgaters. They are the problem, not the solution.

Re:Vandalize them

[Anonymous Coward]

Random fun fact of the day:
Those cheap pen-type chinese laser pointers you find on amazon or ebay are rated at 5mw, but they're actually 100-150mw. This makes them hazardous to the human eye and even worse for photosensors.

Re:Vandalize them

[Anonymous Coward]

computer simulations show that roads with cars evenly spaced are capable of carrying twice as much traffic as ones with tailgating drivers

What about real world computer simulations where "evenly spaced" is a real time variable that goes negative when the volume of cars on or attempting access to the road exceeds the amount of space available? Drivers who fail to adjust their spacing (when they're able) don't help either.

Re:Vandalize them

[Anonymous Coward]

people are most likely to speed in the areas where it is the SAFEST to speed.

That is literally the stupidest thing I've seen this week. Thankfully, it's only Tuesday.

From direct personal experience, the people I see speeding the most are usually doing it in places where it is insane to do so.

I see people driving 2x the speed in school zones, I've seen people driving twice the limit on highways, and I see people passing on double yellow lines approaching a blind crest. I've been driving along in a snow storm driving below the speed limit because of road conditions, and had people pull out to pass and race up the road -- I have on occasion passed these idiots in the ditch a little further up the road as they prove it wasn't "safe" to speed. And don't get me started on the idiots who decide they need to swerve into the oncoming lane to get around something, basically driving someone else off the road unless they want to get into a head on collision. This happened to me twice on the drive home yesterday.

In my estimation, the people who are speeding the most are the most delusional about just how safe they are and just how safe the conditions are.

I'm literally shopping for a dash cam because I see so much stupidity on the road. There is no way I'm going to believe the people driving like idiots are thinking "this is a safe place to speed", because that's not what they're doing.

Re:Vandalize them

[Gavagai80]

Those "speed traps" you don't understand are frequently for the sake of pedestrians, bicyclists and residents and businesses within earshot. They have rights too.

Re:Vandalize them

[kenh]

It's very well known that all the speed controlling devices are located in the areas where people are most likely to speed and people are most likely to speed in the areas where it is the SAFEST to speed.

No, it is not "very well known" - I only see these on back/side road, typically residential or high-pedestrian traffic areas. When I see them on highways it is just before a construction site with reduced speed limits. NONE of those areas are "SAFEST to speed".

The parkway with a healthy forest devider three lane on each side that has typically 50 mph limit in California is getting a 35 mph speed trap for no reason but to rob the drivers.

California is a special case, unlike many of the other 49 states, don't assume that what you observe in California is wide-spread, or even common, outside California. That said, I've never seen a three lane road with a speed limit of 35 that wasn't surrounded by residences.

Re:Vandalize them

[Solandri]

If safety were the foremost concern, they wouldn't suddenly go from a 50 MPH to 35 MPH speed limit with no warning. They'd do it like my city does - a warning sign with flashing lights that there's a 35 MPH zone coming up about a half mile before the speed limit change, then the 35 MPH speed limit. (I think they did it this way because it's on a downhill grade, so people tended not to slow down quickly enough.)

What's needed is to eliminate money from the equation. Speeding tickets and other fines, as crimes against society, should go into an escrow fund, not into the local government's general fund. Each year in April, all money in the escrow fund should be divided up evenly and given as a tax credit to all citizens filing tax returns. Speeders get punished. All of society gets compensated for whatever damage the speeders did. And governments create their laws and allocate police enforcement on the basis of safety and keeping society functioning well rather than on the basis of maximizing revenue.

Re:Vandalize them

[dknj]

I would just suggest noncompliance and passive resistance. For instance, it's illegal in almost every state to cover your license plate. Most states do NOT make it illegal to have letters and numbers on the trunk lid around the license plate. If you happen to go off roading, you may get a line or two, or some spots of mud on your license plate.

What I'm trying to say, is that we have solved the captcha spam problem a long time ago. Let's apply it to real world problems now.

-dk

Re:Vandalize them

[No Longer an AC]

I would assume I would be on camera as I approached it, even if I sneaked up behind it.

If vandalism did become widespread they would definitely try to catch the culprits and unless it became widespread a vandalism campaign against them would merely be a thorn in their side.

In fact it's probably a good idea to assume you're on camera in public unless you're in the wilderness somewhere.

I'll accept the occasional speeding ticket rather than be charged with an actual crime. Would it be destruction of government property? Would it be worse if it were a DEA camera instead of just some small town's? I don't want to find out.

Besides, I have never gotten a ticket from a camera - just actual cops who pulled me over.

Re:Vandalize them

[mapkinase]

>I would assume I would be on camera as I approached it, even if I sneaked up behind it.

Shield and sword never ends, Not a reason to give up.

It's a robbery, plain and simple.

Re:Vandalize them

[mapkinase]

>Those "speed traps" you don't understand

No. YOU do not understand, dimwit. You are talking out of your fat ass.

Camera Placement

[XxtraLarGe]

Not sure about other states, but Michigan doesn't require a front license plate. They must be mounting these on the rear and recording after you have gone by.

Re:Camera Placement

[Oswald McWeany]

Not sure about other states, but Michigan doesn't require a front license plate. They must be mounting these on the rear and recording after you have gone by.

Most Southern states don't require a front license plate either.

Re:Camera Placement

[Anonymous Coward]

We just leave the tailgate down. Unless the camera is a foot off the ground it aint gonna see anything but the TruckNutz. Defeats the red light cameras too.

Re:Camera Placement

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Southern states don't require a front license plate either.

LOL, I'm not sure most Southern states require a front bumper.

Re:Camera Placement

[Anonymous Coward]

One of those signs showed up 2 weeks ago on this speed limit sign here... https://goo.gl/maps/KpaJsBKE8qH2 I noticed it because I ride a bicycle to work down this street and the numbers are very bright amber LED's. Yesterday, Monday Oct 1, 2018, I wasn't blinded by the speed limit sign and as I rode past it, there were just wires hanging from the speed limit sign.

Someone walked up and pried it off with a crowbar or something. I was thinking that someone beat me to it as I was thinking the same thing. It had accurately measured my speed on a bicycle, something worth taking.

Re:Camera Placement

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Southern states don't require a front license plate either.

A map.

personal drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Next, everyone gets a personal drone.... to follow them around and report on their activities. Especially political activities.

Re: personal drones

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as I get to see Craig's moms Bush, I'm ok with it.

Technically they are much more visible

[mapkinase]

Than current equally portable small mounted photocameras, sometimes well hidden besides other large roadside objects.

Redacted?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much it's spending on the signs has been redacted.

That right there. That disgusts me. How dare a government hide such information from the voting public that's paying for it all.

Re:Redacted?

[BlueStrat]

How much it's spending on the signs has been redacted.

That right there. That disgusts me. How dare a government hide such information from the voting public that's paying for it all.

"Sit down and shut up, Prole, or we'll civil-forfeit everything you own and parallel-construct your ass into a life sentence in PMITA prison!" -- Government

Ain't freedom grand?

Hey everyone, let's allow the government an even wider scope and give it more power over more of our lives and give it more of our money to do it with! What could possibly go wrong? /s

Strat

Strat

Re:Redacted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ain't freedom grand?

How would we know?

Re:Redacted?

[kenh]

Perhaps they are only buying a few, but they want drug dealers to think they are everywhere?

You have to wonder about a public bid for "secret, hidden" license plate readers, right?

Re:Redacted?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole war on drugs is such a waste of money and a farce. The DEA should be dismantled and we should take all of that money that it spends and put it toward treatment and monitored usage facilities/education and healthcare. Let's all just admit that the war on drugs is a code word for a war on the poor, minorities, and the disenfranchised. It is an unwinnable waste that is a stone around the neck of this nation.

Re:Redacted?

[dknj]

You know, just like healthcare will bankrupt the US, so will spending on "Wars" like the one the DEA is fighting. And just like how certain services will need to be cut in the future, DEA will likely be one of them. Problem is, people are waking up to enslaving Americans (prison) but that is a workforce that would need to be replaced. So the future is upon us sooner then they would have liked.

Starting from 2016, ICE is the new DEA

Re:Redacted?

[dcw3]

Ain't freedom grand?

How would we know?

Well, you Russians wouldn't.

Re:roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 whe

[Oswald McWeany]

roads are under posted just try to do the limit of 55 on I-294 when it's wide open.

In most areas if you post a speed limit as 45 everyone will do 55. If you post a speed limit of 55 everyone will do 65.

In some areas it's more than that. I'm not familiar with I-294 - but if it's like the I-285 around Atlanta which has similar speed limits- it's a bit of a joke and the speed people travel is way higher than the limit. Many going above 80. Realistically the police probably could raise the speed limit- it's not like they even try and enforce the speed limit anyway- no one gets pulled over for speeding on I-285. The reason the speed is so ridiculously low is because they don't want to be sued for having a high speed limit in a heavy traffic area.

American Citizens Buying Spraypaint

[Anonymous Coward]

This works wonders for protecting your rights. Sneak up behind the sign, reach around, and give the lens a good coating.

And so, We the people, who never authorised this rights invasion, spend our personal money and risk our freedom, in order to disable things we apparently are spent our tax money to purchase, install and maintain just to restore our freedom.

What a country!

Re: Walk Away from Corporate Social Just-Us

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the homunculus who's never contributed a line of code in his life.

The surveillance state just got bigger.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't to get speeders, although there are radar & license photo machines that will do that. The point is to track where you go, building up a map of your travels & acquaintances/coworkers/friends/family; "but these license plate readers and surveillance cameras track your every movement". Note the presumption of guilt former Sergeant Joseph Giacalone offers, where we know you are guilty, but we haven't caught you yet. This provides the tools to catch you, as your movements are shared across a nationwide network, like this. And therein lies the real issue: What is a game-changing crime-fighting tool to some, is a privacy overreach of near-existential proportion to others.

Also note this quote which makes a large step towards a totalitarian state:

“We don’t know when somebody’s going to commit a crime, we don’t know when somebody’s going to run over somebody and take off,” said Joe Giacalone. “So that data should be there forever. We never know when we’re going to need it.”

Who defines a "crime"? What if the definition of a "crime" is changed ex post facto, and now you can be retroactively prosecuted, "because we hold the data, forever."

Frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

Im surprised they werent already doing this.

Re:roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 whe

[Anonymous Coward]

My answer to this is if they set the speed limit to 200 mph, would everyone rush out to buy a supercar so they can do 210 mph?

Steve Jobs was right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, I'm going to do what Steve Jobs did.

Some may recall that Steve used to run around in a BMW with no license plate.

Apparently, he wasn't breaking the law.

Rather, he was leasing a new vehicle every 6-9 months, which is the time you're allowed (in California) to run around without a license plate. Being Steve Jobs, he always leased the same model car (I guess so it would match his jeans and turtleneck).

I already travel without a front plate (technically illegal, and I'd get a fixit ticket for it were I ever stopped for something else). Now I'll just find a friendly leasing company and do this instead. But perhaps with a Kia or Honda instead of a BMW.

Re:Steve Jobs was right

[PPH]

You could always lease a vehicle from an Arizona company (no front plate required in AZ).

As far as the subject of the article goes, automated plate readers often can capture both front and rear plate images.

Re:Steve Jobs was right

[The Snazster]

In California I believe you can go thirty days without a tag (but you still must have a temporary thing pushed up under your windshield). With neither tag nor temporary thing, I don't know that there is any state that will give you more than three days after purchase. In many or most it seems to be one day or 24 hours.

Re:Steve Jobs was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yes and no. Most states require you to change to their state plates 30 days after moving there. Ironic you'd mention AZ. I was living in AZ and they gave me a citation for it. I was moving out of AZ the next month as one last twist of irony.

Re:Steve Jobs was right

[PPH]

Most states require you to change to their state plates 30 days after moving there.

Incorporate.

We have several local businesses that maintain their vehicle fleets with out of state plates. Florida and Texas seem to be pretty popular. They have done this for a few decades, as far as I can see. I assume that they maintain an office 'front' in these locations to act as the vehicles home for registration purposes. So that's why I said 'lease'.

Re:roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 whe

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the logic that keeps them from raising the speed limit on a highway near me from the current 55 to 65 like all of the similar highways in the area. As it stands, almost nobody, outside of extreme traffic conditions, goes less than 65. Traffic on the highways with higher speed limits have similar, if not lower, typical speeds; traffic moves at roughly the same speed around here regardless of whether the limit is 55, 65, or 75. You could raise the speed limit to 80 and it wouldn't change things at all, except possibly ending the practice of the occasional self-righteous idiot trying to enforce the speed limit on everyone by going 50 in the left hand lane (and thus creating the aforementioned extreme traffic condition). Choosing arbitrary and unrealistic speed limits just encourages people to ignore the posted limits, which causes problems when these people then drive on roads with appropriate limits and try to do 60 on small winding roads with no shoulders, limited visibility, and frequent pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Re: Walk Away from Corporate Social Just-Us

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't all be Wrath, some of us must be Gluttony.

Privacy in Cars Extends Too Far

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, you have a right to privacy inside the car, almost the same as in your house. This, sadly, prevents the cops from pulling citing the asshats who are texting while driving. The privacy in cars should allow that which is seen from outside to be used as evidence so that driving while texting can actually be prosecuted as a primary offense, as opposed to a pile on after the SUV driver hits someone.

Re:Privacy in Cars Extends Too Far

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

They can write tickets for distracted driving, if the law allows it. Mostluly the legislators are cowards who roll out the law as a secondary issue you can't pull someone over for to avoid the wrath of the voters.

It has nothing to do with any 4th Amendment issues obviously seeable through glass windows.

Good!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very good news for all of the people who can't obey the laws. It's about time the government takes criminal activities seriously. With over 20,000 speed related accidents in Ohio alone the amount of damage to people and property is staggering and it is only getting worse as people don't care about the cost of a ticket let alone paying higher insurance rates. It's more important to risk your life and others in order to get more into your busy day. Only an idiot wouldn't want to do more. Becoming disabled or dying won't happen to me syndrome is so greatly believed that as Americans speeding, drinking, taking unknown drugs is what the young
people think is being an adult is all about.

Re:Good!!

[PPH]

With over 20,000 speed related accidents

Um. I don't think the DEA is going to concern itself with speed enforcement. Unless, by 'speed', you mean methamphetamine.

Re: Good!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed cameras don't do anything, this is collecting information to track humans, as you track animals

It makes it easier for them to ticket you for petty things and it won't stop accidents

Go look up how effective these cameras are at keeping people safe

Re:Good!!

[EvilSS]

Yea this isn't about speeding, it about building a database of vehicles traveling certain routes repeatedly. The signs are just a ploy to disguise the cameras, and at the same time allow them to be mobile so their locations can't be mapped out in advance and avoided. They are looking for a way to hone in on drug couriers. Of course in the end that won't be all it's used for. But it's not like anything like this has ever had unintended consequences, right? RIGHT?

Re:and on a toll way they get each Plate in all la

[Anonymous Coward]

I've driven in about a dozen states, and I've never seen a toll road anywhere.
I think they're an urban legend.

Um... where I am

[rsilvergun]

they are put in places folks are speeding or where they have been accidents. The data shows folks slow down when they know how fast they're driving, but it's easy to ignore your gauge and just go with the flow, which usually puts you 10-15 over.

Re:Um... where I am

[markdavis]

>"they are put in places folks are speeding or where they have been accidents. The data shows folks slow down when they know how fast they're driving, but it's easy to ignore your gauge and just go with the flow, which usually puts you 10-15 over."

Going with the flow is exactly what DOES NOT cause accidents. Accidents are caused primarily by:

1) Distracted driving
2) Impaired driving
3) Following too closely
4) Improper lane changes
5) Gross speed *differential*

And none of those have an "automated" "ticket in the mail" solution. Yet the obsession always seems to be over speed. Why? Because it is objective, easily obtained, and generates lots of revenue.

Your government doesn't own you

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your country that you pay for. You don't have to be subject to tyranny if you don't want to be, theoretically.

This is obviously a step down the slippery slope that leads to tyranny, the right thing to do (if you support freedom) is push back

hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the conservatives complaining about Big Government and its overreach into our personal lives?

Perhaps their anti-government sentiments is only heard when it's about a regulation that limits a corporation. ACTUAL government overreach is not their true concern.

I'm waiting. (tumbleweed rolls by)

Re:hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives are not against big government. They are only against a big government that serves The People. They want a big government that serves corporations.

Liberals want a big government that serves The People.

Guess what. Neither, by itself, is a good approach.

Re:roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 whe

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

In fact, I think you've found the way to revitalize America's auto industry! Give parent poster the Nobel prize of economics!

California was already doing this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking closely at the CalTrans mobile radar signs, there is a window at the top of the sign for a camera which is often visible. This is a window separate from the one used by the RADAR/LIDAR devices. Some have a very discreetly placed antenna for cellular band.

A number of local agencies use the same signs.

Re:roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 whe

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the speed is so ridiculously low is because they don't want to be sued for having a high speed limit in a heavy traffic area.

And the award for complete and utter nonsense goes to ...

Seriously, you can't sue the government because the speed limit is too high. It takes a special kind of ignorant to even think you can.

Wow

[bagofbeans]

"Your women"? Does come as somewhat patriarchial, old chap.

So imagine they combine this with other data...

[gosand]

Not only was the defendant going 15 MPH over the speed limit, but he was also posting messages to facebook during this time. Based on his GPS data, we have concluded that he alsolied to officers about where he had been and where he was going. So we are recommending in addition to the traffic violation a charge of reckless endangerment and providing false information to officers.

Re:roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 whe

[Joe_Dragon]

also the makes the work zones at 45 will all kinds of walls a big joke as well. Now if there hard real limits and did not have as many 24/7 45 work zones then more people would slow down in them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Walk Away from Corporate Social Just-Us

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural law of the free people of planet Earth - fuck you corporate human or alien fuckers!!!

No need for this

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DEA want's to find drug dealers tell them to look at the 7-11 around the corner from my house. They don't do this because they are not really interested in stopping drugs. The politicians and media are receiving way too many kickbacks from the drug business.

However they are interested in instilling a sense of fear and servility in the citizens of the USA. They are also interested in getting lots of cool toys and funneling money to their uncles and nephews who run the companies that make the cool toys.

-Let's invade Mexico. It would be fun

Isn't it kinda stupid...

[kenh]

Isn't it kinda stupid to to publicly post that you are "hiding" license plate readers for the DEA in speed-measuring signs?

Were I a person involved in something the DEA might be interested in, I'd make a point of avoiding such signs.

It's like a policeman at a speed trap, waiting behind a billboard, but the billboard says "Warning: There's a speed radar-equipped patrol car behind this billboard!"

So what?

[kenh]

To operate on the public roadways, your vehicle needs a license plate.

By law your license plate must be readable and not obscured.

Anyone on the side of the road, or in a vehicle behind/in front of you can read the license plate.

There is no presumption of privacy as you drive around on the public roads with a sign that has a tag on it that ties that car to an individual. It's as if you are driving around with your name on the side of the vehicle, and choosing to get upset that people on the side of the road know you are there.

Re:So what?

[markdavis]

>"There is no presumption of privacy as you drive around on the public roads with a sign that has a tag on it that ties that car to an individual. It's as if you are driving around with your name on the side of the vehicle, and choosing to get upset that people on the side of the road know you are there."

I hear this kind of nonsense all the time. Yes, there IS a presumption based on just reason, if nothing else. Nobody 60 years ago would really have envisioned technology that could spy on people so easily and cheaply that such "public information" would be stored on everyone, stored forever, and aggregated and combined with so much other information and searchable in microseconds. Technology that can also unmask license numbers and identify instead based on a zillion other criteria as well.

Traveling in public is absolutely necessary- be it in a car, or bike, or even by foot. I don't think it is reasonable that the moment you step foot (or tire) out of your house, that automatically gives a green light to absolute tracking and surveillance everywhere you go. It violates the entire spirit of what America is supposed to stand for, things like- freedom from harassment, pursuit of happiness, knowing your accusers, freedom of association, burden of proof, being free of unreasonable searches, etc.

Information is power. Connected information is exponentially more power. The more information the government (and business) is collecting on and about you, the more power they will have over you. Power corrupts. And innocent "data" right now might not be so harmless in the future.

Re: roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 wh

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about accidents. If an accident happens because the speed limit was too high, can the citizens sue?
I don't know.

"Small machine shops" to boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the article, the following small businesses have contracts to conceal the spying hardware in speed signs.

Knuckledragger Design, San Diego, CA...
http://knuckledraggerdesign.co...

Total Machine, King George, VA...
http://totalmachineva.com/

If they do business with parasites who want to rob the public of their privacy, it's the public's choice not to do business with them.

Off with the nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I love seeing those on parked vehicles

Tools for Blackmail

[Anonymous Coward]

Say they collect you driving down a known street 10mph over, for about a year.... then you decide to run for office. Well: that can amount to 200 citations if they decide to pursue. It's a big effort, but - a LEVER for blackmail. Don't think it will be done? LOL People who think they are always innocent have no idea how much leverage this information can exert.

Our Tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're using our tax dollars they don't get to redact what they're spending. FOIA.

So free! So dumb! #freedumbs #americunts

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for turning the entire world into a prison you fucking cowards.

Anerican Pussies NOT New

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clipper Chip was developed in the 1980s. Americans have been pussy slaves for atleast three generations... sorry pussyboy, no one was going to revolt in the 90s and nobody is gonna do it now. Pussies and slaves. Home of the cuck.

The obvious answer

[GrumpySteen]

We need naked under 18 year olds to dance around in front of the cameras, then we can tip off the feds that the company is collecting and storing child pornography.

Darn...

[The Relentless]

I guess I won't be trying for high-scores on those things now.

Thanks for the vandalism!

[Chas]

Yeah. The first people who get fucked like this will be stopping at these signs and demolishing them.

Canadian trade deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the US just sign a new trade deal with Canada? Coincidence?

Re Surveillance, not enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Be afraid, be very afraid.