Welfare Agents Tapped License Plate Database to Track and Prove Welfare Fraud

magoo said:
So it would be fine to have agents physically follow welfare fraudsters and photograph them engaging in activities they say they are unable to do, to disprove disability?

But it's not ok to do the same thing using license plate data.

I say use whatever tools you have at your disposal.
Click to expand...

The problem is, they didn't follow the rules for the tool, thus they're in violation. That's what most people should have a problem with.

The tool is there, it's available. To stop abuse, they enacted rules for it's usage. Simple rules like submitting a reason for the query within an allotted time, public notifications, and auditing. These were likely agreed upon for the system to be turned on (as a compromise to prevent abuse / prevent any privacy lawsuits).

It's sorta like doing a warrantless search to aid in your investigation. Sure, you found the murder weapon, but it was still an unlawful search. This system doesn't need a warrant, but it has procedures. If it's going to abused, maybe the data needs to be locked up so that investigators are forced to follow them (e.g. require a warrant).
 
Last edited:
I don't like how they use the word "tracking" as in following you. I know in a way it is, or it could be used that way, but in other ways it's not.

Let's see if there is a difference in these two examples.

A. I enter your plate number into a database and I see every location you've driven to and how long it took to get there, how long you were there, etc. I think this would be tracking, particularly if the database is linked to information about the identity of the plate/vehicle owner. I can even "track" you in real time so that as you drive around each plate reader you pass reports the moment you're plate is captured again. To me, this is tracking.

B. I enter a location and I get a listing of all plates recorded at that location for a given time period. To me, this is not tracking. So if my suspected fraudster says he resides at a certain location and you fine no daily activity of his plate there, but you have other info that says he's living somewhere else that is more expensive and his plate is there almost every day .......

In both instances the data base is populated with all the same information, it's all there, all collected in the same manner.
 
Spidey329 said:
The problem is, they didn't follow the rules for the tool, thus they're in violation. That's what most people should have a problem with.

The tool is there, it's available. To stop abuse, they enacted rules for it's usage. Simple rules like submitting a reason for the query within an allotted time.

It's sorta like doing a warrantless search to aid in your investigation. Sure, you found the murder weapon, but it was still an unlawful search. This system doesn't need a warrant, but it has procedures. If it's going to abused, maybe the data needs to be locked up so that investigators are forced to follow then.
Click to expand...


So which is it? Were they lying about not being aware and are they faithfully trying to correct the oversight? Or are were they being naughty, misusing the tool as evil urchins do and only started doing what they are supposed to do because they got caught?

And since this is CA. State Law, what is being done by the State to see which is which? Some investigative arm of the State should be looking into it right?

I mean that is what I want to see happen. I don't expect perfection from any government, I know how they are. But when some office fucks up I do want them to take a real fucking look at it and tell me if this was intentional or an ignorant fuck up and then deal with it appropriately.
 
Driving is a privilege, not a right. While driving you are in a public space and your vehicle is wearing an ID tag. Ignoring the "it may not be your car", it's still public information gathered in a public space. So go for it. You want to cheat the system, be more creative.
 
Flatrock19 said:
A warrant to observe what vehicles come and go in a public place? A warrant to access data that was compiled regarding who cam and went in a public place?

I'm not saying that the government can't put restrictions on how such data is gathered and used, but you don't have a constitutional right to not have your license plate number recorded in public.

We have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches by the government. Different people have different ideas of what is reasonable. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then probable cause that a crime has been committed is required before a search can be performed. But if law enforcement can't even look at data gathered in a public place how would they gather evidence to show probable cause?
Click to expand...


Agreed.

Traditionally data observable in public does not require a warrant, but that was established in a time when surveillance was highly resource intensive. You had to hire people to collect data and compile reports.

In our modern era computer automation means that it is easy to surveil almost everyone almost all the time. With the massive cost divorced from the process it means it will and does happen a lot more often.

I don't think the founding fathers intended to create a mass surveillance state. They just didn't tackle the issue as it didn't seem like feasible problem to them, given the technology of the time.

I think it is at the very least worth revisiting what is reasonable considering the ever expanding surveillance capabilities of our modern age.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Agreed.

Traditionally data observable in public does not require a warrant, but that was established in a time when surveillance was highly resource intensive. You had to hire people to collect data and compile reports.

In our modern era computer automation means that it is easy to surveil almost everyone almost all the time. With the massive cost divorced from the process it means it will and does happen a lot more often.

I don't think the founding fathers intended to create a mass surveillance state. They just didn't tackle the issue as it didn't seem like feasible problem to them, given the technology of the time.

I think it is at the very least worth revisiting what is reasonable considering the ever expanding surveillance capabilities of our modern age.
Click to expand...


Of course we didn't just jump from where we were to were we are overnight. Is it accelerating, yes. Big data has presented another new twist. Furthermore, how do we expect the justices to rule on these things if the justices don't have a clear view of current capabilities.

I think it's time that the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court need to be cleared, (Security Clearance), and informed of all new capabilities in development for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Collection foreign and domestic. I think they need to know and have a solid understanding of exactly what is possible from now on and not have to wait on the revelations of a FOI request, whistle blower, etc. They should not be learning about this shit from CNN Live.
 
lcpiper said:
Of course we didn't just jump from where we were to were we are overnight. Is it accelerating, yes. Big data has presented another new twist. Furthermore, how do we expect the justices to rule on these things if the justices don't have a clear view of current capabilities.

I think it's time that the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court need to be cleared, (Security Clearance), and informed of all new capabilities in development for Law Enforcement and Intelligence Collection foreign and domestic. I think they need to know and have a solid understanding of exactly what is possible from now on and not have to wait on the revelations of a FOI request, whistle blower, etc. They should not be learning about this shit from CNN Live.
Click to expand...

U.S. Supreme Court don't need no stinking security clearance.
 
Not so sure how this is helpful in tracking people. It proves their vehicle was there, NOT that they were there.

For example, I have a truck, I've loaned it to friends/family that had a car but needed a truck to move something. My vehicle was places where I was not present in the area.
 
TordanGow said:
Not so sure how this is helpful in tracking people. It proves their vehicle was there, NOT that they were there.

For example, I have a truck, I've loaned it to friends/family that had a car but needed a truck to move something. My vehicle was places where I was not present in the area.
Click to expand...

Depends. Evidence is rarely used in a vacuum. Once you know where someones vehicle has been, then you can poke around more regarding what is in those areas and see if you can find evidence that they are going there.

It narrows things down significantly.
 
Last edited:
TordanGow said:
Not so sure how this is helpful in tracking people. It proves their vehicle was there, NOT that they were there.

For example, I have a truck, I've loaned it to friends/family that had a car but needed a truck to move something. My vehicle was places where I was not present in the area.
Click to expand...

Alone it doesn't. But in court, under oath, what are you and the others you loan your truck to going to say about who was driving the truck?
 
So you're basically saying that people who are on public assistance shouldn't be monitored to know that they aren't abusing the system? Bullshit. I've stood in lines at grocery stores and I see people buying high-end shit like lobster and what the hell do they pay it with? Food stamps!!! I also see people who are on food stamps buying beer and liquor. If you can afford to buy your own damn beer and liquor you can also afford to buy your own damn food without government assistance. Food stamp fraud is real, I've seen it every damn day in the store.
 
lcpiper said:
Alone it doesn't. But in court, under oath, what are you and the others you loan your truck to going to say about who was driving the truck?
Click to expand...

I'm going to say nothing and invoke the 5th, I wouldn't even tell them I loaned it out. Invoking the 5th can't be held against you in a court. If you can prove something on me, do it. If not, go pound sand.
 
Last edited:
trparky said:
...people buying lobster
Click to expand...

That is not a violation of the terms of benefits. Lobster is a food item.

Try to differentiate between fraud (violating the law, like buying cigarettes with food stamps, or selling food stamps to get money for drugs) and your opinion of what food items should and shouldnt be covered.

What can SNAP buy?

The thing is, we only see a snapshot of these people. We don't know their spending habits the rest of the time we don't see them. Maybe they scrimped and saved their benefits all month to get a special item for a special occasion? We don't know.

The law doesn't dictate every last way they can and can't spend the benefits, as long as they are spent on food. Poor people have special occasions too, and if they are willing to live on breadcrumbs one week to do something special one day, who are we to judge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ltron
like this
TordanGow said:
I'm going to say nothing and invoke the 5th, I wouldn't even tell them I loaned it out. Invoking the 5th can't be held against you in a court. If you can prove something on me, do it. If not, go pound sand.
Click to expand...
Ok. So the other side is going to pound you with circumstantial evidence until there is a clear silhouette - and you're not going to put up your mystery driver?

It's a strategy, I suppose.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Once you get the masses to spy on one another, you've mastered dystopia building 101.
Click to expand...

like they did in Germany circa 1930's.

Many folks can't stand to be away from their precious cell phone ring-a-dings for more than maybe 1/2 an hour if that and now we learned this week that Google tracks us even when we have No Tracking turned on.
Cellphoneitis is like a garbage disposal in a kitchen sink - people use it out of habit even though the device is all but worthless really and yet, once they've used on for a while they can't seem to live without one.

Habitual cell phone usage (especially texting) is a sickness and even after those who worked on getting you to respond to their cell phone apps confessed they manipulate people in a major way with the ring-a-dings, people just ignore the warnings and seek after more and more ring-a-dings. IMHO it's not unlike Pavlov's dogs (aka ring-a-ding, salivate, answer the phone or read the text)
 
Twisted Kidney said:
The real master-stroke is convincing the populace to fear and loath their neighbours. Once you get the masses to spy on one another, you've mastered dystopia building 101.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. Suppose people brake into your house intending to butcher you, rape your wife, kidnap your child. Would rather your neighbour:

a) stay the fuck out of that mess. this is how great societies crumble. people not minding their own business
b) call the police
 
Joust said:
Ok. So the other side is going to pound you with circumstantial evidence until there is a clear silhouette - and you're not going to put up your mystery driver?

It's a strategy, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'd simply point out that my vehicles presence is not my presence. Unless you have proof that *I* was somewhere, then you don't actually have proof that I was there. Showing that my car was at a certain location doesn't prove that I was there, it proves my car was there. I'm not sure why your ALPR system said my vehicle was there, that's for you as a prosecutor to prove. Maybe it was acting up, I'm not sure, please prove I was where you claim. The question is: am I being judged or is my car being judged? You need to prove that *I* violated a law, and circumstantial factors don't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
dgz said:
I am not so sure about that. Suppose people brake into your house intending to butcher you, rape your wife, kidnap your child. Would rather your neighbour:

a) stay the fuck out of that mess. this is how great societies crumble. people not minding their own business
b) call the police
Click to expand...

Neither, I prefer the homeowner waste the scumbag with extra shots just to make sure. I'm not particularly interested in paying for housing and care of said scumbag.
 
TordanGow said:
I'm going to say nothing and invoke the 5th, I wouldn't even tell them I loaned it out. Invoking the 5th can't be held against you in a court. If you can prove something on me, do it. If not, go pound sand.
Click to expand...

Works for you, the others who are called to testify and are not the defendants do not have this luxury, it's tell the truth or face a perjury charge and become defendants.

Is there some other imagined fantasy you have that you think you can get over this way?

Maybe you can't remember who you loaned your vehicle to .....

It has to be believable, otherwise you'll be facing jail for contempt or a jury that doesn't believe you.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Dear anonymous friend

There are multiple techniques that can hide your plate except when viewed directly from a seated position.

There are defraction grates, polarizers as well as photo aligned polymers that allow light to pass only from certain angles.

Ever try to view a car lcd screen with polarized sunglasses?

Unfortunately Leo's look poorly upon anything that might be viewed as hiding your plate even if it's clearly visible by eyesite from a seated position.
Click to expand...

I followed once a car that sprayed the reflection paint/coating? on their license... Holy cow, even with sunglasses the sun would blind me... VERY dangerous if you ask me. (I have no clue if that's a method you mentioned)
I suppose I was in the right angle with the right sun and all but still... chrome was 100 times less blinding.

One thing is sure, I couldn't read anything on that plate.
 
Using big data to stop fraud and abuse? Great. Apply to SS, medicare, medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance... everything.

Because they're good programs and they shouldn't be dragged through the mud by people abusing them.
 
Incontentia Buttocks said:
Driving is a privilege, not a right. While driving you are in a public space and your vehicle is wearing an ID tag. Ignoring the "it may not be your car", it's still public information gathered in a public space. So go for it. You want to cheat the system, be more creative.
Click to expand...
This gets me. If i can afford to build/buy an automobile, why the fuck cant I drive? Someone gets to tell me I can't drive because reasons? I support licenses to ensure competency and so on, but seriously, driving is a privilege? Fuck that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
travm said:
This gets me. If i can afford to build/buy an automobile, why the fuck cant I drive? Someone gets to tell me I can't drive because reasons? I support licenses to ensure competency and so on, but seriously, driving is a privilege? Fuck that.
Click to expand...

It's a privilege so it can be properly regulated. So you have to have things like insurance, which is critically important.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Dear anonymous friend

There are multiple techniques that can hide your plate except when viewed directly from a seated position.

There are defraction grates, polarizers as well as photo aligned polymers that allow light to pass only from certain angles.

Ever try to view a car lcd screen with polarized sunglasses?

Unfortunately Leo's look poorly upon anything that might be viewed as hiding your plate even if it's clearly visible by eyesite from a seated position.
Click to expand...

Those are all great ways to get pulled over. Just drive a 4wd and leave the plate covered in mud/snow.
 
Uh oh. I can hear the ACLU (American Criminal Liberties Union) spooling up for a lawsuit to protect the welfare fraud criminals from here.
 
I love living in the middle of nowhere where there are no cameras to watch my every move. Cell reception has so many holes in it that tracking by phone would be sketchy too :) Also my 85 Jeep doesn't have a computer in it to record any type of activity the vehicle might do so that is even less they can use against me.

_l_ said:
like they did in Germany circa 1930's.

Many folks can't stand to be away from their precious cell phone ring-a-dings for more than maybe 1/2 an hour if that and now we learned this week that Google tracks us even when we have No Tracking turned on.
Cellphoneitis is like a garbage disposal in a kitchen sink - people use it out of habit even though the device is all but worthless really and yet, once they've used on for a while they can't seem to live without one.

Habitual cell phone usage (especially texting) is a sickness and even after those who worked on getting you to respond to their cell phone apps confessed they manipulate people in a major way with the ring-a-dings, people just ignore the warnings and seek after more and more ring-a-dings. IMHO it's not unlike Pavlov's dogs (aka ring-a-ding, salivate, answer the phone or read the text)
Click to expand...

I see people at work who just can't wait until break time so they can jump on their phones and see what they missed the last two hours. If a natural disaster every knocks out cell and internet service around here, I think those people will be sitting in a corner somewhere drooling and mumbling as they lose their minds.

dgz said:
I am not so sure about that. Suppose people brake into your house intending to butcher you, rape your wife, kidnap your child. Would rather your neighbour:

a) stay the fuck out of that mess. this is how great societies crumble. people not minding their own business
b) call the police
Click to expand...

There is a vast difference between neighbors watching out for neighbors and neighbors spying on neighbors. Out here in the rural areas neighbors keep a watch out for each other, but you don't find them running to the government to report every little movement they make.

If people would have read Animal Farm 40-50 years ago and took it to heart they could have seen these things coming. But even then people were discouraged from reading such things because "they are too difficult to understand" and now it is more important they read a book like "Johnny has two Mommies" than something that is deep and makes you think about what is really happening to our freedoms.
 
Good. I hope they catch every last one of them committing fraud & boot their ass out of the country.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Dear anonymous friend

There are multiple techniques that can hide your plate except when viewed directly from a seated position.

There are defraction grates, polarizers as well as photo aligned polymers that allow light to pass only from certain angles.

Ever try to view a car lcd screen with polarized sunglasses?

Unfortunately Leo's look poorly upon anything that might be viewed as hiding your plate even if it's clearly visible by eyesite from a seated position.
Click to expand...

Am an optics geek and yes this is one of many ways.. Infrared cameras can be dealt with easily too. Laws are same in my country, it only has to be visible directly behind or in front. Nothing says cameras have to as well. I used to just bend the plate on my bikes at 45 degrees for each end digit, ensuring even rear facing cameras can't track but police behind can. 100% Lawful.
There are interesting papers online about tracking errors, those state emblems you burgers have cause hell for them. I've always wanted to paint a car with hundreds of number plates lol. I have defeated toll cameras with a top to bottom muddy black car. It cant find the right contrast point to analyse ;)
 
Last edited:
Show me the demographic breakdown of these criminals. I know what they will be, as is the usual pattern, but I want to see the actual number, if the SJW Canadian government even dared to release the damning figures.

It is time to stop self deluding about the reality of things in the West.
 
Can’t wait to see how our Government will act when everything’s free.
This is what they do to people who need food.

I can already see the slogans in 2020 for the election.
Everything Will Be Free, but this time we mean it..
 
N4CR said:
Am an optics geek and yes this is one of many ways.. Infrared cameras can be dealt with easily too. Laws are same in my country, it only has to be visible directly behind or in front. Nothing says cameras have to as well. I used to just bend the plate on my bikes at 45 degrees for each end digit, ensuring even rear facing cameras can't track but police behind can. 100% Lawful.
There are interesting papers online about tracking errors, those state emblems you burgers have cause hell for them. I've always wanted to paint a car with hundreds of number plates lol. I have defeated toll cameras with a top to bottom muddy black car. It cant find the right contrast point to analyse ;)
Click to expand...


Wouldn't work well in NY State. Those are invites for bored cops to give you a ticket....



1. (a) No person shall operate, drive or park a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state unless such vehicle shall have a distinctive number assigned to it by the commissioner and a set of number plates issued by the commissioner with a number and other identification matter if any, corresponding to that of the certificate of registration conspicuously displayed, one on the front and one on the rear of such vehicle, each securely fastened so as to prevent the same from swinging and placed, whenever reasonably possible, not higher than forty-eight inches and not lower than twelve inches from the ground;  provided, however, that in any registration year for which only one number plate is issued, such number plate shall constitute a set of number plates for the time in which such use is authorized, shall be displayed on the rear of the vehicle and none shall be displayed on its front, except in case of a tractor, when such number plate shall be displayed on the front of the vehicle and none shall be displayed on its rear.

(b) Number plates shall be kept clean and in a condition so as to be easily readable and shall not be covered by glass or any plastic material, and shall not be knowingly covered or coated with any artificial or synthetic material or substance that conceals or obscures such number plates or that distorts a recorded or photographic image of such number plates, and the view of such number plates shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle or by anything carried thereon, except for a receiver-transmitter issued by a publicly owned tolling facility in connection with electronic toll collection when such receiver-transmitter is affixed to the exterior of a vehicle in accordance with mounting instructions provided by the tolling facility.

2. Such number plates shall be of such material, form, design and dimensions and contain or set forth such distinguishing number or other identification marks as the commissioner shall prescribe, provided, however, that there shall be at all times a marked contrast between the color of the number plates and that of the numerals or letters thereon, and provided further that no vehicle shall display the number plates of more than one state at a time except where the vehicle is required to be registered in more than one state, and provided further that the number plates of a rental vehicle shall not display any indication of the rental status of such vehicle nor shall any plate be used other than those issued by the commissioner.

3. No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle drawing a trailer on the public highways of the state, unless such trailer shall have a distinctive number assigned to it by the commissioner and a number plate issued by such commissioner with a number corresponding to that of the certificate of registration displayed and fastened on the rear in the manner provided for number plates on the rear of a motor vehicle.  The provisions of subdivision two of this section relating to number plates for motor vehicles shall apply to number plates for any such trailer.  The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply when a newly constructed trailer is being drawn to or from a weighing station solely for the purpose of determining the weight thereof.

4. No person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state having displayed thereon number plates not proper for such vehicle under the provisions of this chapter and, upon a conviction for this offense, the number plates shall be surrendered to the court for delivery to the commissioner.  The failure to produce the certificate of registration or registration renewal stub of a vehicle shall be presumptive evidence of displaying number plates not proper for the vehicle.  Every annual number plate issued shall remain the property of the state until the correct registration fee is paid.  Every number plate of a permanent nature for use with a removable date tag which shall be issued shall remain the property of the state unless and until the commissioner finds that the state no longer has use for it.  Number plates belonging to the state shall be under the control of the commissioner.

5. No person shall knowingly authorize or permit a number plate issued for a motor vehicle or trailer owned and registered by him to be displayed on any motor vehicle or trailer other than a motor vehicle or trailer to which such number plate has been assigned by the commissioner, or upon which such number plate may legally be displayed under a temporary certificate of registration issued by a dealer under the provisions of section four hundred twenty of this chapter.

6. No owner shall knowingly cause or permit a vehicle owned by him to be operated, driven or parked upon the public highways of this state in violation of this section.  Any violation of this section that occurs while a motor vehicle is parked on the public highways of this state shall constitute a parking violation.

7. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, association, limited liability company or corporation to sell, offer for sale or distribute any artificial or synthetic material or substance for the purpose of application to a number plate that will, upon application to a number plate, distort a recorded or photographic image of such number plate.

8. The violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than two hundred dollars.
 
umeng2002 said:
Show me the part of the Law that says your reasonable expectation of privacy or even 4th Amendment rights get taken away if you accept welfare. The Supreme Court even recently said that GPS locators on cars are illegal for cops to use without a warrant. It's not a hard stretch to include plate scanners in that line of thinking.
Click to expand...

If it is a condition you consent to in order to get benefits, no issue as you can always say no and go else where
 
I'm think if you want some action on this... don't say you tracked welfare abusers, say you were tracking friendly undocumented workers from Mexico. That'll get things cleared up faster.
 
umeng2002 said:
Show me the part of the Law that says your reasonable expectation of privacy or even 4th Amendment rights get taken away if you accept welfare. The Supreme Court even recently said that GPS locators on cars are illegal for cops to use without a warrant. It's not a hard stretch to include plate scanners in that line of thinking.
Click to expand...

No, it is. There exists a fundamental difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top