Judge Orders Fairfax Police To Stop Collecting Data From License Plate Readers (washingtonpost.com)

A Fairfax County judge on Monday ordered the Fairfax County police to stop maintaining a database of photos of vehicle license plates, with the time and location where they were snapped, ruling that "passive use" of data from automated license plate readers on the back of patrol cars violates Virginia privacy law. From a report: The ruling followed a related finding by the Virginia Supreme Court last year, meaning the case could affect how long -- if at all -- Virginia police can keep license plate data. The ruling by Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Robert J. Smith is a victory for privacy rights advocates who argued that the police could track a person's movements by compiling the times and exact locations of a car anytime its plate was captured by a license plate reader. Fairfax County Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler Jr. said Monday night that he would ask the county attorney to appeal the ruling.

The issue represents another front in the ongoing conflict over the use of emerging technologies by law enforcement. Police say they can, and have, used license plate location data to find dangerous criminals and missing persons. Privacy advocates don't oppose the use of the technology during an active investigation, but they say that maintaining a database of license plate locations for months or years provides too much opportunity for abuse by the police. Last month, the ACLU disclosed that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was tapping into a vast, national database of police and private license plate readers. Such private databases remain unregulated.

Comments

This is good

[rossdee]

For people that live in Fairfax county.

Not so good for the people who don't even know where Faifax county is
Theres probably quite a few of them.

Re:This is good

[alvinrod]

I think this is good for everyone, everywhere. Someone has to be first, but once one person or one county does it, others will start to follow in kind.

Re:This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

It sets precedent. But these plate readers are often rentals and the data is held by a private company. So the police just need to ask the private company for access. Until their is some regulation for this data, access is for sale to the highest bidder or warrant.

Re:This is good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Fairfax County is the part of Virgina that touches DC. Which means a lot of government workers live there. It also holds the Pentagon and Langley, as well as numerous other government agencies. Hence, this decision affects a lot of federal workers, which might mean that they pay attention to this, which means it might spread more.

IIRC, Fairfax county is also the home to several Supreme Court justices.

Re:This is good

[omnichad]

If it's declared private information that these companies have acquired, then it's not far off from being declared equivalent to illegal wiretapping.

Re:This is good

[sbrown123]

Actually it is not. They have had those since 2011. Here is an old article that gives details on how well they worked:

"From February 2010 through the end of 2012, license plate readers helped the state police recover 529 stolen vehicles and 751 stolen license plates and arrest 229 wanted persons, Geller said. In one recent high-profile case, she said, the readers were used in investigating a string of arsons on the Eastern Shore last year."

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/ne...

These things were awesome and stopped a lot of crime in a short time.

I am all against facial recognition. But cars aren't people. And driving is a privilege, not a right.

Re:This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Or more likely it only happened there because the "important" people live there and it won't spread because they stop caring once their own back yard is cleaned up.

Re:This is good

[dcw3]

I am all against facial recognition. But cars aren't people. And driving is a privilege, not a right.

Yes, we've all heard that old phrase, but the reality is that if you live in Fairfax county, as I do, you likely have to drive just to make a living. If you consider that a requirement to work, which is is for the vast majority, then you'll have to admit that it's not so much of a "privilege". It's being used to track peoples movements, and that's a blatant invasion of privacy. Yes, you can be photographed in public, but people have no right to follow your movements, and that includes the government.

Re:This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about the use of them, it is about the collection and storage of the information. In other words, building a profile of location data of every plate scanned.

Re: This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a part of the problem. You misunderstand technology and take their word for it. It isn't the use that's the problem. It's the blanket collection of all plates and then being stored in a database for god knows how long. That's the problem.

Re:This is good

[j-turkey]

I am all against facial recognition. But cars aren't people. And driving is a privilege, not a right.

Yes, we've all heard that old phrase, but the reality is that if you live in Fairfax county, as I do, you likely have to drive just to make a living. ...

To take it a step further, I feel that suggesting driving is a privilege is not only inaccurate, but tends to be pretty intellectually lazy. The fact is that most of our freedoms are a privilege - at least by that standard. For example, even though many believe that we have a right to life, liberty, and prosperity; using the "privilege" standard, our right to not be incarcerated is a privilege. Breaking the law will land one in prison (assuming due process of law). Further, assuming that driving a car is a privilege suggests that a drivers license can be revoked for arbitrary reasons and without any sort of due process. The fact of the matter is that it cannot. Just like being a licensed electrician isn't a privilege, rather, it's an activity that generally requires government licensure. Said licensure is not a privilege given to a select few, but a license to perform a profession issued by a sanctioning body to anyone who meets certain qualifications and cannot be revoked without cause or due process. I would argue that anything that is merely considered a privilege doesn't hold up to that standard. It's time to drop this lazy idea that so many have just accepted as fact.

Getting back to the root of the issue, whether or not driving is a right or privilege should not dictate that a person's movements are subject to government monitoring...that's what this is really all about, and this is what is at the heart of the court's ruling.

Re: This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

No part of Fairfax touches D.C. The Pentagon is in Arlington

FTP

[Anonymous Coward]

FTP

Re:FTP

[DickBreath]

Use SFTP instead.

Re:FTP

[Anonymous Coward]

FTP

Heh. Wait until you have to call 911.

You'll be singing a different tune then.

If you survive.

All this "Fuck the police" SJW BULLSHIT would end real fast if the police in places like Baltimore or Chicago just walked off the job for a month the next time SJW politicians charged them with murder when someone broke their own damn neck in the back of a police van or skated after faking a hate crime.

You probably don't know that one of the bits of evidence used by the Baltimore SJW prosecutor in the Freddie Gray trials was that the driver went around turns TOO SLOW in order to make the ride WORSE. Seriously - that's how deranged the Freddie Gray prosecutions were.

Then the voters stuck in those cities would stop voting for the SJW moron politicians.

Re:FTP

[DickBreath]

Baltimore or Chicago seem like places where citizens must be as fearful of police as they are of criminals.

Re:FTP

[Anonymous Coward]

Please shut your hole.

Re:FTP

[Bryansix]

Perception isn't reality.

Re: FTP

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you haven't walked in those cities at night.

Collecting plates at the buffet

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sitting at my favorite buffet recently (coconut shrimp, yum) and a bunch of cops came it. Turns out that they had set their car up to scan plates on the main road. Throughout lunch they were getting pings on plates with associated tickets, fines, warrants etc. If something got their attention, then they would call it in (hey who wants to leave a hot plate of coconut shrimp behind).

I do not think that this will really improve policing, just allow for the collection of more fines while sitting at the buffet

Re:Collecting plates at the buffet

[DickBreath]

I wouldn't mind them using the tech to deal with tickets, fines, warrants, etc. As long as they didn't keep the license plate time-location data beyond that point. In this case the tech would merely assist in police work.

Some might argue that having a database of where every car has ever been in the past could also make police work easier. But in that case we are building the apparatus of a police state. Police work is always easy in a police state. They record all your calls, contacts, movements and associations.

Using automation to identify a car with unpaid fines is merely providing assistance. Keeping a record of all other license plates read during the process is what crosses the line. Only keep a record of THIS car, at THIS location at THIS time, which is wanted for X.

The problem with keeping a database of all "innocent" car time-locations is that we can not, and never will be able to trust the people who have this database. See all of human history. This is why it is a problem for the NSA to have similar databases of innocent people.

Re: Collecting plates at the buffet

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you even need to use video surveillance to identify a car with unpaid fines? If you know which car you're looking for, make the fines required to renew registration. This will work for most people. If they don't renew or use bogus stickers they'll eventually be caught. Someone will settle it eventually to get out of jail.

Let's leave the creepy stuff out of it.

Next argument: but we need it for Amber alerts, won't you think of the children...

Re: Collecting plates at the buffet

[DickBreath]

But that would require patience.

Re:Collecting plates at the buffet

[chuckugly]

The only way I can see where this ubiquitous collection and storage isn't a problem is if every plate (or whatever) is logged and every citizen has equal access to the database. In a case like that we lose the illusion of anonymity and even the biggest urban center becomes essentially a small village where everyone can know almost everything about each other. People got along fine for a long time in social situations like that and while to our modern thinking it might seem odd, I don't see it as intrinsically unworkable. But that equality is unlikely to happen, and if it doesn't the power imbalance is a very bad thing.

One for the good guys

[Sqreater]

But the general trend is against privacy. Police assume everyone is a criminal who has just not been caught yet. The presumption of innocence is dead.

Re:One for the good guys

[geekmux]

But the general trend is against privacy. Police assume everyone is a criminal who has just not been caught yet. The presumption of innocence is dead.

Do police really care to believe that, or is it more like they're being sold that steaming pile of FUD from the data peddlers?

Rule #1 when solving for Why: Follow the fucking money.

And assuming everyone is a criminal is the kind of delusional shit that creates bad cops.

Re:One for the good guys

[Sqreater]

Police had to make the conscious decision to spend the money on the system. That means they were internally motivated to do so. That means they believe the general public is a potential threat. That includes a guy driving to work or a mother making a store run with her kids.

Re:One for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between thinking/believing that everyone is a criminal, and wanting to have information to help capture criminals. They likely bought the license plate readers to help them find cars with unpaid tickets, or perhaps used to commit a crime. I cannot say if they had an altruistic concern when they bought the system, but I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they did.

Re:One for the good guys

[geekmux]

Police had to make the conscious decision to spend the money on the system. That means they were internally motivated to do so. That means they believe the general public is a potential threat. That includes a guy driving to work or a mother making a store run with her kids.

Ingrained or taught? My inherent question really does boil down to that. Do those inclined to put on a badge and gun for work every day naturally believe everyone around them is a criminal, or are they sold that line of chest-pounding unionized bullshit every time a data peddler walks in the door with a new surveillance toy?

I've interacted with and am friends with quite a few of them. Most cops punch in and punch out. They wear a gun as part of their job, and don't ever fire or practice with it unless ordered to, and physical exercise is hardly a priority. They're there to just do the shift and go home, and actually don't give two shits about anyone that doesn't come up on their screen or radio. In other words, they give a shit about those "greater good" issues about as much as the rest of us clock punchers. And I really don't believe the "everyone's a criminal" mantra is being pushed by anyone other than those out to sell something.

Re:One for the good guys

[Oswald McWeany]

Police assume everyone is a criminal who has just not been caught yet.

They are! Everyone is! There are so many obscure or deliberately vague laws out there that I bet every adult human has broken a law in their life in the US, even if they were unaware they were doing so at the time!

That's why privacy and unreasonable protection from police snooping is so important. The solution is not to arrest the entire populace. When police have too much information, instead of being protect and serve, they can become political and arrest anyone. I've always thought we need fewer, more simpler, easy to follow laws, and more privacy and protection from digital snooping- so that police can only go after those who are really in the wrong.

When you make everything illegal- police can target specific groups more easily.

Re:One for the good guys

[LostMyAccount]

I'd wager police leadership is sold on the idea that the plate readers pay for themselves through increased fine collections and civil forfeiture. If they can actually do some data intelligence driven detective work, it's just an added bonus but the real benefit is collecting money.

The cops *know* there all kinds of people out there with unpaid fines, but traditional methods are so inefficient (short of a mass issuance of bench warrants and a couple of dozen deputies spending a few days clearing them) they know they are essentially uncollectable without a lot of luck.

Having a machine that can more or less instantaneously tell you someone owes you money lets you rake it in. I'd wager places with this kind of automation probably also issue a lot more fines because they know that they're likely to collect.

I think the automation of enforcement like this is kind of awful and the incentives it creates and rewards make policing more onerous.

Re:One for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch LivePD once and tell me they are assuming innocence. Presumtion of innocence is in the courts, not the streets.

Re:One for the good guys

[dcw3]

As someone who moved to Fairfax Co. in '82, I've had numerous opportunities to see the local LE in action. I highly doubt there was some nefarious goal. And I say this as someone who's opposed to them keeping any kind of database to track our movements. Every cop I've interacted with, save one who was a little aggressive but backed down when I shut up (the group I was with was being kicked out of a bar and I was trying to explain what happened), has been polite and professional. From what I've read, they've used this system to find many stolen vehicles and convicts...I'm good with that.

For those who think it's the right pushing this, it was our former Democrat governor Terry McAuliffe that refused to sign a bill that would have limited LE's data retention to 60 days.

Re:One for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do police really care to believe that"

Well, putting it that way is a sweeping generalization so the answer would have to be no. However, that is a fair summary of the real attitude evinced by many law enforcement personnel. It is somewhat more nuanced -- normally it is more accurately expressed as "other than myself, my family and friends, fellow officers and their families and friends -- everyone is a criminal who hasn't been caught yet.

Does this contribute to "bad cops"? Certainly. But it doesn't make all cops bad and the extent to which an individual law enforcement officer holds to it varies.

Why does it happen? Because cops tend to encounter and have to deal with people at their worst. Drunk. Raging fits. Breaking and entering. Mugging. They encounter people who'd rather lie and steal than make an honest living. *However* while this doesn't mean that everyone they encounter is this way, it is disproportionately so that exactly this mindset is the biggest danger of being a cop. I say its the biggest risk because, as you say, it leads to becoming "a bad cop." (Physical danger is decidedly not -- being a farmer, logger, construction worker, or fisherman all carry significantly greater risk of physical danger.)

Re:One for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I gave a fair reply above, but I will note your encounter with law enforcement seems to be limited, or you've only known "new" law enforcement officers, or you've only known desk jockeys as opposed to officers that have to interact with the public, if you haven't noticed the trend. Its a professional hazard in much the same way that paranoia is a hazard for those in the intelligence community. The longer someone stays in the profession the more they tend toward either a biased via of the public or actual paranoia.

Note that "not giving two shits about anyone that doesn't come up on their screen or radio" says little about what they think about anyone they encounter. And the tendency over time is for that "encounter" to extend to "including those I haven't had the displeasure of meeting."

Also note I am not saying law enforcement officers are "bad" -- only noting a (well-known) risk associated with their profession. Even the reason for the risk is well known. I've known plenty of good officers. I've also been around enough of them in group functions to witness the prejudice first hand.

In summary: sweeping generalizations are not accurate, but in this case the generalization is a characterization of a common risk for those in the profession.

Re:One for the good guys

[Sqreater]

Perhaps so, but they are just the foot soldiers, and if higher ups told them to arrest you, they would. It is like in Nazi Germany. If higher ups tell you to arrest this jew who you think did nothing at all, what do you do? Do you say no? Or do you just do what you are told in order to have a job and feed your family? The German police officer may not have known or cared the arrestee was a jew. The data is being used higher up. the And today, the arresting officer may not know the reason there is an arrest warrant for you. But he would do his job.

Re: One for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops should never get the benefit of the doubt. They have been proven liars.

Re: One for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess. You are a white male.

Your opinion on police brutality means shit.

Are rental cars tracked?

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is: do the same police agencies track who rents cars? If not, a bad actor may rent a car to remain anonymous during a bad operation, especially across state lines.

Re:Are rental cars tracked?

[DickBreath]

The very question invites the police-state to establish a new database and require rental car companies to append records to it for all rentals.

There are other license plate readers in Fairfax

[Anonymous Coward]

They place Emissions testers randomly in corners of highways.

https://www.rapidpassvirginia.com/VaPublic/Home/FAQ

"RAPIDPASS systems are exhaust emissions analyzers similar to those used in traditional emissions inspection stations, but adapted for drive-through testing. Two green boxes placed across a lane of traffic measure a vehicle's speed and acceleration and associated exhaust emissions in order to determine its compliance with emissions standards. A camera captures an image of the vehicle's license plate so owners can be notified their vehicle has qualified for the convenience and time savings of the RAPIDPASS program."

Track the off duty police

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling that if someone started tracking the whereabouts of the police chief and keeping that data stored for years, they may get the hint... or make up some BS reason to arrest you.

Re:Track the off duty police

[Anonymous Coward]

Track the off duty police

And don't let them own any firearm or magazine that a civilian cannot own.

Headline is wrong

[tomhath]

They're still collecting data, the judge said they can't store it indefinitely without a good reason.

Re:Headline is wrong

[DickBreath]

I don't think I have a problem collecting it as long as it is disposed of immediately beyond its intended use.

For example: the system spots a parked car. That car has no warrants. Then do not keep a record that this car was parked here at this time.

The license is in plain view. An officer could see it, and compare it to a list. When he does so, he doesn't keep a record of every license plate he looked at. This would just automate that. Only record when a wanted car has been found.

"Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the public!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO:

License Plate Scanners are a vitally important/valuable tech, for law enforcement, to fight against crime, to protect & serve common good of general public!!!

& on the contrary to what self-appointed "Privacy Advocates" (like ACLU & EFF etc) always try to claim/portray, general public is NOT obsessed w/ privacy (ask FaceBook!!!) & actually quite willing to help law enforcement!!!

Re:There are other license plate readers in Fairfa

[DickBreath]

The problem arises if they keep car location data for cars that do not raise any emissions concerns.

Track Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Can citizens track police by recording and uploading their license plates, faces, time, and location?

Re:"Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the public

[DickBreath]

> License Plate Scanners are a vitally important/valuable tech, for law enforcement,
> to fight against crime, to protect & serve common good of general public!!!

Okay. How about license plate databases. That is what we're talking about here. A database of where every car has ever been and when. That crosses the line. Police cannot be trusted to have such data.

It's one thing if a system scans plates and only alerts and records when a wanted vehicle is found. It's a whole different thing to build the apparatus of a police state and keep records of where every car has ever been.

Do you see the difference?

Radar detectors also banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems Virginia also bans Radar Detectors. Not only do they want to track your movement. They also don't want you to know where police are at.

I'm all for privacy but . . .

[The Snazster]

Driving an invisible car is not an option, nor should it be. If we really had an inalienable right to do that, then every license plate would just read "Road Tax Paid."

But hacking computers, tapping phone lines, intercepting cell phone data, no knock SWAT raids (on the basis of a single phone call), and seizing cash, laptops, and cell phones, all without a court order? Those are the kind of things where we would be better off drawing the line should be drawn and defended. Don't talk about slippery slopes, either. If people can't ever compromise on anything, and everything is an absolute, we wouldn't need judges or legislators or any of that.

If you want to take it to the kind of extremes where recording a license plate number is illegal, you might just as well outlaw collection and storage of fingerprints and DNA. I think it's great if they can figure out that a certain vehicle has been nearby on every occasion that a serial killer has struck.

Re:I'm all for privacy but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to misunderstand the issue. Again we understand that LP scanners are useful, no here one is trying to ban them, It's the database full of surveillance on innocent citizens and it's probable misuse that is the problem. If you don't think it's being misused then you are mistaken. there is no end to the stories of the
abuses of policing tools.

Tough shit if their job isn't easy, it isn't supposed to be. They are supposed to respect our rights and when they don't we have to be willing to force them to.

Re:I'm all for privacy but . . .

[omnichad]

If you want to take it to the kind of extremes where recording a license plate number is illegal, you might just as well outlaw collection and storage of fingerprints and DNA

I have no problem with scanning license plates - that just augments something a person can do with their own two eyes. It's storage of location data over time that violates privacy.

Outlawing storage of fingerprints and DNA for people who were not prosecuted or convicted is a good idea to me as well. Collecting for a single case is OK and fine. Even if for no other reason than false positives on future cases wasting innocent peoples' time.

Re:"presumption of innocence"

[Anonymous Coward]

The "presumption of innocence" applies to a court of law.

In a cops mind on the other hand:
1) You're guilty, or else you wouldn't have attracted a cops attention.
2) Everybody's guilty of something, even if they (the cop) doesn't know what it is yet.

Police response will be 'OK', we'll outsource it

[schwit1]

The LPR companies like this ruling. It means LEOs will come to them to gather and manage the data. But who can attest to the integrity of the data? And no warrants will be required to access the data.

I would add that FFC police are horrendous when it comes to transparency.

Re:There are other license plate readers in Fairfa

[cayenne8]

"RAPIDPASS systems are exhaust emissions analyzers similar to those used in traditional emissions inspection stations, but adapted for drive-through testing.

Wow..that's wild.

Where I live, they don't even do emissions testing on annual car inspections, and other states I've lived in, don't even do annual inspections.

Interesting the differences between states.....

This is a placebo - not just law enforcement

[drnb]

Many license plate databases are privately created and operated. Various law enforcement agencies subscribe to these databases rather than run their own. Fairfax can switch from their system to a commercial system.

Where does the data for these private systems come from? Auto repossessors, bail bondsmen, private investigators, etc. These folks have been known to constantly scan everywhere they go. Some even cruise mall, stadium, walmart parking lots to build up the database.

Basically private databases exist that may indicate places you likely visit or drive past. Law enforcement is only part of the problem.

Re:This is a placebo - not just law enforcement

[alvinrod]

There's nothing preventing anyone from taking photographs in public and I'm more concerned with the dangers of outlawing that than finding other solutions to problems such as these. If it's a big enough concern for a person, someone could easily make a cover for license plates to put over it while parked or have a car that will automatically cover them while the vehicle isn't being operated.

Re:This is a placebo - not just law enforcement

[dcw3]

Your cover would be illegal, at least here in Fairfax County, VA. Your vehicle is required to have properly plated tags, even when parked in your own driveway...I know, I went to court over expired tags when I found a ticket on my window in my driveway.

Re:"presumption of innocence"

[alvinrod]

There are enough laws in the U.S. and sufficiently many strict liability laws that the second point you make is quite likely to be true. You've probably broken several laws of which you were completely unaware just today. This is why I'm of the opinion that every law should have an expiration date. If it's a good law, it can be passed again without issue, but it allows for bad laws to fall off the books over time and doesn't require expensive or lengthy legal challenges.

Re:Police response will be 'OK', we'll outsource i

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Yes, we also have to do something about LPR companies, if that was your intention.

Are they reselling this info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they reselling this info to third parties? If so, they might not want to lose that revenue stream.

Re:There are other license plate readers in Fairfa

[omnichad]

Emissions testing is important in dense population areas because air quality can get out of hand pretty fast. In rural or smaller urban areas, keeping old cars on the road longer is a net positive environmentally speaking.

Having talked to both cops and civvies/perps...

[Anonymous Coward]

They all believe that, and it is the civvies who believe they should be allowed to because yes they are doing illegal behavior, but hey they haven't been caught yet, that really ruffle my feathers.

America is more of a police state than australia was when Britain shipped all its undesirables there to push out the natives and colonize it for themselves.

Re:Police response will be 'OK', we'll outsource i

[omnichad]

If the LPR company is storing the data long-term, they should be shut down and their CEO convicted for stalking. Stalking is no more legal for a corporation than a private individual following you around and recording your every move.

Re:There are other license plate readers in Fairfa

[dcw3]

Not only that, but in VA we have "personal property tax" on our vehicles. They use the book value of your vehicle to tax it every year. My 2012 is still getting hit for ~$600/year. This encourages people to keep old polluting vehicles much longer than they should. Thankfully, I'm leaving this idiocy in the near future.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how these activist courts in Virginia get away with shredding the law and the Constitution like this.

If you are in a public place, you have ZERO reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, you have NO RIGHT to drive a motor vehicle, and as such you consent to the terms and conditions of your license, which include maintaining a license plate on your vehicle. That license plate does not belong to you. It belongs to the State, along with the database of information tied to it. Since the plate and that data belong to them, and you have no expectation of privacy anyway, quit your bitching.

Re:"Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the public

[Bryansix]

No. I work in data and tracking the movement of criminals is vitally important to doing pattern analysis. Plus, you have no expectation of privacy in public so if you want to be private, lock your front door and have Amazon deliver your groceries.

Rights?

[AHuxley]

Of criminals and illegal migrants?
The people who use fake and shared parts of an ID to drive?
That the "active investigations" all over the USA that needs tech like vehicle license plates to find.

Re:Rights?

[mhotchin]

If they don't have rights then neither do you.

Re: "Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the publi

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded down?

Re: Police response will be 'OK', we'll outsource

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Facebook or google.

I like govt knowing things, for a limited time ...

[Anonymous Coward]

but they shouldn't store the records indefinitely. 30 days seems about right. Long enough to help in active cases. Long enough to figure out which vehicles are involved and get all those records, but not so long as to become too useful for govt fishing of minor activities.

I get that many people don't care if they are being tracked and followed. That doesn't reduce the desire for others to have their right to privacy.

I'm talking about all tracking, of any sort. Cellular, Bluetooth, Wifi, GPS, even telecom calls from my home. I have an expectation of privacy for anything that wasn't illegal from over a week ago, unless I post that publicly.

After having 2 stalkers in the 1990s and early 2000s, my public profile is almost non-existent. I stopped using the name from the stalker days. With a unique last name, people are still able to find me, but not without going through some other relative first. I'm just glad it isn't anyone in law enforcement doing the stalking.

Re:"Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the public

[DickBreath]

You have no expectation of privacy in a police state. If you want no expectation of privacy, then you should move to a police state. BTW, police work is EASY in a police state! You can monitor everyone's movements, contacts, associations, past history. It sounds perfect for you!

Re:"Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the public

[DickBreath]

On your other topic: tracking the movement of criminals. I have no problem with that. But only track the criminals, not everyone else.

I don't have a problem with you scanning for license plates of wanted cars. If you see one, then the system should alert and record the car, time and location. But all those non-criminal car license plates you scanned -- those should be discarded not recorded. No need for a massive police state database of where every car has ever been at any time.

The problem is this: you might trust the people with this database today. But what about tomorrow? What is some madman were in power a few years from now and had access to that data? Do Not build the apparatus of a police state. You don't know what hands it will fall into.

Not all rights are universal

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't have rights then neither do you.

Untrue. An illegal migrant would not have the right to be here. A legal migrant or a citizen would have that right. Rights are not necessarily universal, some only apply to subgroups.

Re:Not all rights are universal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he was calling you an illegal migrant because we took the land from the natives. Either way he's wrong. As far as civilization goes, your a child of the nation you were born in, so by law you would have rights. It just so happens that this civilization requires us to document anyone coming in to the country and require them to be granted the right to stay, otherwise they do not have the same rights as the citizens.

violates Virginia privacy law

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but if I judge ruled I had serially violated the law, I'd probably be sent to jail.

Re:Police response will be 'OK', we'll outsource i

[WolfgangVL]

If the LPR company is storing the data long-term, they should be shut down and their CEO convicted for stalking. Stalking is no more legal for a corporation than a private individual following you around and recording your every move.

While I agree that it's not good, this is the world we live in. Everything harvests and records information in public, as well as places of business. It will take data protection laws to change this, and even then, I doubt the wholesale collection of your shopping habits and location will be affected. We can expect this to continually reach deeper and deeper into our personal lives as long there is a few bucks to be made. It is our duty as private citizens to express displeasure, and work within our system to affect change every time we feel a line is crossed.

All that being said, it's important that we keep issues in focus, and only raise concerns regarding clear violations of our personal privacy. It takes more than simply following and recording a person in public to qualify as stalking. (AANAL)

Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family.

Re:Police response will be 'OK', we'll outsource i

[omnichad]

and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family.

Like offering to sell your data to law enforcement. Sounds like a threat to me.

Re:"Privacy Advocates" do NOT represent the public

[Bryansix]

You don't know who is a criminal until after they committed a crime.