Automatic License Plate Reader System Being Abused?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Do you drive a car in Los Angeles? You do? Get up against the wall you criminal scumbag! You have the right to remain silent, everything you say can and will be recorded and saved with your license plate data.

The agencies took a novel approach in the briefs they filed in EFF and the ACLU of Southern California’s California Public Records Act lawsuit seeking a week’s worth of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data. They have argued that “All [license plate] data is investigatory.” The fact that it may never be associated with a specific crime doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
 
George Orwell was right, just missed it by a few years.
"1984" should be required reading for all!!!!!!
 
I worked with a guy at our local police dept who went on to work at an Indian casino in the midwest. He had pole mounted LPRs installed at each entrance/exit. The 'hot lists' they used were of people who had been kicked out of the casino or resort. It also provided them with a list of license plates that left the parking lot in case of an incident.
I'd say it's a good use of the technology.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Public place, no expectation of privacy and all that rot.
Click to expand...
I agree and disagree.

You have no expectation of privacy driving around, but it is reasonable to say that law enforcement should require reasonable cause to track you, the same as they require a warrant to put a tracking device on your vehicle.

With enough traffic cameras, squad cars, etc otherwise they are basically investigating you and keeping files on you without reasonable cause, which is BS.
 
LAPD, at the cutting edge of total scumbaggery as usual. Do they even notice most of america roots against them at this point?
 
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're sitting in traffic. It's perfectly legal for anyone to set up a camera on their lawn and film cars going by.

I think it's the cataloguing and storing of the data that crosses the line. I don't have a problem with my picture being taken in traffic, I have a problem with the database. Hell I use cash because I don't feel my bank needs a comprehensive log of my daily routine. If someone feels they need that information, they should get a damned warrant.
 
Speaking of sitting in traffic.. about a year ago I was at a red light and I noticed a police car behind me. After the light changed, his lights come on and I pull over. He asks why I have the license plate of another vehicle. What happened is that the B on my license plate has been beaten up a bit by my trailer so now it could now be mistaken for an 8 (which is what the police man thought it was). I asked he why he even ran my license number and was told it was something he routinely did at stops and even while driving. So now I make a habit of never driving in front of a police car.
 
Its a good idea, but I think it needs to get associated with speed and other driving stuff so the guys doing the street racing stuff because they wanna be like Paul Newman and crash in a stupid looking, expensive car can have their licenses revoked automatically if they drive dangerously. Its easier than having police everywhere. Instead you just go to their house and take away their license and car.
 
Ducman69 said:
I agree and disagree.

You have no expectation of privacy driving around, but it is reasonable to say that law enforcement should require reasonable cause to track you, the same as they require a warrant to put a tracking device on your vehicle.

With enough traffic cameras, squad cars, etc otherwise they are basically investigating you and keeping files on you without reasonable cause, which is BS.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the tracking part, there needs to be a line drawn to what constitutes tracking, otherwise any sort of city cameras could be considered "tracking devices". Now for me, I have no problem with them reading plates then maybe comparing those against a database of wanted cars/Amber alerts/etc. Now if it gets abused in the way where they keep records of the time and place of each reading and use that to track your whereabouts then I would have issues with that, which I believe the EFF & ACLU are trying to determine with the data they're requesting.
 
Ducman69 said:
I agree and disagree.

You have no expectation of privacy driving around, but it is reasonable to say that law enforcement should require reasonable cause to track you, the same as they require a warrant to put a tracking device on your vehicle.

With enough traffic cameras, squad cars, etc otherwise they are basically investigating you and keeping files on you without reasonable cause, which is BS.
Click to expand...

Police routinely get BOLO alerts (be on the lookout) for certain cars, persons, etc. when they need eyes on the street to find somebody or something. License plate readers are an extension of this. I once got pulled over because a BOLO matched my cars description coming out from a certain neighborhood. The officer respectfully asked me for ID to which I respectfully handed over and asked him nicely what's going on and he informed me that there was a report of my car color and model fleeing the scene of the crime. I hope they caught the guy.

I would support police with license readers IF it was used to scan for arrest warrants or stolen vehicles. If used for revenue generation I am totally against it.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Police routinely get BOLO alerts (be on the lookout) for certain cars, persons, etc. when they need eyes on the street to find somebody or something. License plate readers are an extension of this. I once got pulled over because a BOLO matched my cars description coming out from a certain neighborhood. The officer respectfully asked me for ID to which I respectfully handed over and asked him nicely what's going on and he informed me that there was a report of my car color and model fleeing the scene of the crime. I hope they caught the guy.

I would support police with license readers IF it was used to scan for arrest warrants or stolen vehicles. If used for revenue generation I am totally against it.
Click to expand...

And lots of departments use them like a robot observer for BOLO. The APS scans, pops up any hits on outstanding warrants, vehicle thefts, amber or silver alerts, BOLOs etc. THe officer confirms or dismisses, and the system is essentially rebooted at the end of shift.

THis is keeping all the data and mapping your whereabouts within the last 30 days at their whim with no real ongoing investigation. It's not the same thing.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Police routinely get BOLO alerts (be on the lookout) for certain cars, persons, etc. when they need eyes on the street to find somebody or something. License plate readers are an extension of this. I once got pulled over because a BOLO matched my cars description coming out from a certain neighborhood. The officer respectfully asked me for ID to which I respectfully handed over and asked him nicely what's going on and he informed me that there was a report of my car color and model fleeing the scene of the crime. I hope they caught the guy.

I would support police with license readers IF it was used to scan for arrest warrants or stolen vehicles. If used for revenue generation I am totally against it.
Click to expand...

COLLABORATOR!!!!!!!!!!
 
Without probable cause they have zero reason to keep this mapped topographical data of my license plate and the instances and locations it has been scanned. It can and will be used against you if they see fit.
 
I've been tempted to install a hideaway plate, and only have it displayed if I see a cop nearby, or if I'm parked.
 
Why would they need to have probable cause. If you're driving, you're probably going to go faster than the speed limit at some point (like almost everyone does) which is probable cause enough to keep track of where you're driving and how fast you're going so you can get fined for doing something illegal.
 
Anyone else beginning to feel as if the Constitution is beset by rapists?

"Don't worry, just let it happen.......", as the rapist violates every sanctity of decency and privacy.

It makes an mockery of the American values of privacy set forth by the founders, guarded with the blood of many good citizens for 200 some odd years, only to be destroyed in our generation.
 
eh, wait until they start grabbing bulk cell tower data

first it was the jews....
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
LOL at comparing stopping dumb people from speeding and killing each other to rape.
Click to expand...

Herp, derp........ I guess the speed cameras already in place aren't enough for some people, let's create another power for human nature to abuse........

/Any power you grant to an administration that you trust will eventually be inherited by one you cannot trust.
 
jiminator said:
eh, wait until they start grabbing bulk cell tower data

first it was the jews....
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the quote, "if you have nothing to hide.........".

Wonder how many trusting Germans signed up for that pretty gold star, and that all expense paid vacstion, before they realized that THEY had something to hide.

Bless them all, let their deaths not be in vain, respond with vigilance. When someone builds a mechanism that can be used for good or evil, don't be surprised one day when the someone flips the switch.
 
Lith1um said:
Herp, derp........ I guess the speed cameras already in place aren't enough for some people, let's create another power for human nature to abuse........
Click to expand...

How many people do you think go faster than the posted speed limit because they can get away with it? It's not a "freedum fer all 'muricans" to put other people at risk on a road because they can't control their emotions when they're driving. An automated system that observes and revokes the privilege (not Constitutional right) to drive is a great way to deter and stop criminally minded people from speeding.

/Any power you grant to an administration that you trust will eventually be inherited by one you cannot trust.
Click to expand...

That's just crazy quoting of someone else and not individual thoughtful analysis.
 
How many people go faster? Every cop is a criminal., that's how many people drive faster.
 
Lith1um said:
How many people go faster? Every cop is a criminal., that's how many people drive faster.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we can have a serious conversation if you say things that kinda equate to:

"Seth ate a hamburger. That's the reason why there's a mix tape in Teddy Ruxpin's chest."

I mean really, police aren't criminals. They're just people trying to do their jobs who are working to keep civil society orderly. They help people in trouble and stop bad things from happening. I'm sure that like in any other group of people doing something, that a few turn out to be bad people, but that's sort of broad to just randomly accuse every single person in a certain career track of being a criminal. You could say, "Everyone who works for Mattel is a criminal," too and it'd be just as weird insane sounding and have equally nothing to do with people driving faster than the posted speed limit.

Honestly, I think you're being intentionally nonsensical just so you don't have to admit that you're not being rational since it disagrees with an extremist ideology you're using [H] to share with others.
 
I think a lot of cops automatically assume everyone is guilty, seeing as they deal with scum pretty much 24/7.
 
jrweis said:
George Orwell was right, just missed it by a few years.
"1984" should be required reading for all!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Reading about stop making government control our lives by making the government force us to read this book? :D
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I'm not sure we can have a serious conversation if you say things that kinda equate to:

"Seth ate a hamburger. That's the reason why there's a mix tape in Teddy Ruxpin's chest."

I mean really, police aren't criminals. They're just people trying to do their jobs who are working to keep civil society orderly. They help people in trouble and stop bad things from happening. I'm sure that like in any other group of people doing something, that a few turn out to be bad people, but that's sort of broad to just randomly accuse every single person in a certain career track of being a criminal. You could say, "Everyone who works for Mattel is a criminal," too and it'd be just as weird insane sounding and have equally nothing to do with people driving faster than the posted speed limit.

Honestly, I think you're being intentionally nonsensical just so you don't have to admit that you're not being rational since it disagrees with an extremist ideology you're using [H] to share with others.
Click to expand...


And I think you are full of shit, are the personality type that enjoys trolling, and may be a bit touched in the head. At any rate, most people understand not to take you seriously as you enjoy your sport. ;)
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
How many people do you think go faster than the posted speed limit because they can get away with it? It's not a "freedum fer all 'muricans" to put other people at risk on a road because they can't control their emotions when they're driving. An automated system that observes and revokes the privilege (not Constitutional right) to drive is a great way to deter and stop criminally minded people from speeding.
Click to expand...

For one this automated license reading stuff isnt new, but apparently just getting noticed. While I agree that if your are breaking the law, you should be reprimanded, but I dont believe the traffic cameras should be the answer.

Here's my problem. The camera essentially tickets the car and license plate, but cannot prove who was operating it. An assumption != guilty in our justice system. Say someone takes your gun and shoots someone. Are you going to jail because it must have been you, since you are the registered owner.

We have drifted further towards the belief innocence must be proven. That is not the case.
 
Not sure i understand the outrage here.

Your license plate does not belong to you. It is placed on your car by your local government SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of tracking you, and knowing who owns your car, if you have insurance, and other good to know things that enable driving in a society.

Your bank knows how much money you have. Amazon knows everything that you buy. Netflix knows the movies you watch. The police knows the places you drive. If someone did a hit an run on you, or stole your car, I'm sure you would very much appreciate the police finding them.

Line #1 on most drivers manuals is: "Driving is a privilege!". So quit bullshitting about being violated.
 
mastaBlasta said:
Not sure i understand the outrage here.

Your license plate does not belong to you. It is placed on your car by your local government SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of tracking you, and knowing who owns your car, if you have insurance, and other good to know things that enable driving in a society.

Your bank knows how much money you have. Amazon knows everything that you buy. Netflix knows the movies you watch. The police knows the places you drive. If someone did a hit an run on you, or stole your car, I'm sure you would very much appreciate the police finding them.

Line #1 on most drivers manuals is: "Driving is a privilege!". So quit bullshitting about being violated.
Click to expand...

You could make the argument that it's borderline harassment. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you have a car with a state issued license plate on it? So since they can already track you with the license plate and cameras on troopers cars/redlights/corners, would you willingly let them track you with say... a state issued GPS unit? What about your own personal police officer tailing you everyday to and from work just waiting for you to screw up? I mean... it's a privilege after all and you do use cars in public.

Where do you draw the line? Honestly... besides that, it's just damn creepy. Just because driving is a privilege doesn't mean that you don't have rights.
 
Because, this is the face of law enforcement in so many parts of this country.

2ewnrrb.png


It's not some shining monolith of virtue, but rather a patchwork of individuals with individual prejudices, moral structures, and beliefs. Create a power, and it will be misused.

This is the face of American law enforcement,

Watch:"Tennessee Law Enforcement Commiting Highway Robbery?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO_UWxkMsrk

And this is the face of American law enforcement,

Watch:"Florida Toll Booth Detentions"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ZT9ri3dFo"

/AS if, we don't already mass incarcerate more citizens per capita than any other society in history, we need to become more efficient at it.

It's not, "To protect and Serve.", it's "To Punish and Enslave".
 
dr.stevil said:
You could make the argument that it's borderline harassment. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you have a car with a state issued license plate on it? So since they can already track you with the license plate and cameras on troopers cars/redlights/corners, would you willingly let them track you with say... a state issued GPS unit? What about your own personal police officer tailing you everyday to and from work just waiting for you to screw up? I mean... it's a privilege after all and you do use cars in public.

Where do you draw the line? Honestly... besides that, it's just damn creepy. Just because driving is a privilege doesn't mean that you don't have rights.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about the state sharing it's data with the auto insurance industry. The data from every car would rat on every driver for breaking the law, that is, 1 mph over the limit. After all, public safety!
 
http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4

From a report which is available for download in pdf fomat at the above site,

Table 1 Proceeds Distributed to Law Enforcement

0% Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont

50% Colorado, Wisconsin

60% Connecticut, New York

63% Oregon

65% California

75% Nebraska

80% Louisiana, Mississippi

85% Florida

90% Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Texas

95% South Carolina

100%
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
Click to expand...
 
sfsuphysics said:
Public place, no expectation of privacy and all that rot.
Click to expand...

Not as of last year's GPS tracking case, US v. Jones.

The Court set forth what some call the "mosaic theory." Previously, each step of an investigation was evaluated, and under that old system you would indeed say that since they were in public, they had no expectation of privacy. Now, courts look at the investigation as a whole, and determine if it was reasonable or if it was "enough" to be considered a 4th Amendment search.

What this means is that a cop watching your house from the street for an hour might not amount to a search, but a systematic automated tracking of your public movements over several days very well could add up to a search.

Good discussion here:
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/111/3/Kerr.pdf
The author is a law professor that has a huge hardon for the NSA/law enforcement, but he is considered a very authoritative source on the 4th Amendment.
 
Lith1um said:
And I think you are full of shit, are the personality type that enjoys trolling, and may be a bit touched in the head. At any rate, most people understand not to take you seriously as you enjoy your sport. ;)
Click to expand...

Profanity doesn't really make you more credible and calling someone insane instead of having a rational discussion doesn't help either.

Lith1um said:
Because, this is the face of law enforcement in so many parts of this country.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2ewnrrb.png
Click to expand...

That's a TV show, not reality. It's pretty easy to tell the two apart because one happens inside the little screen and the other happens all around you. Just look for a screen bezel next time and it'll put your mind at ease when you find it.

Lith1um said:
How would you feel about the state sharing it's data with the auto insurance industry. The data from every car would rat on every driver for breaking the law, that is, 1 mph over the limit. After all, public safety!
Click to expand...

That'd be a great idea. People should be hurt where it matters the most, in their wallets. That is a very, very good way to discourage people. Also, making them unable to obtain insurance goes a long way too for repeat offenders. It's really, really easy to go a little slower than the speed limit so you don't end up 1 mph over it. I do it all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top