ACLU Objects To License Plate Reader

[HardOCP News]

It seems that the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio has a problem with the Mobile Plate Hunter 900. The device can read up to 900 license plates per hour, then compares them to a computerized list from the National Crime Information Center. So far the system has busted a handful of bad guys but the ACLU thinks that it's an infringement on a driver's right to privacy.

Since the patrol began using the scanners in 2004, it has recovered 95 stolen cars - valued at $740,000 - and made 111 arrests, said patrol spokesman Lt. Shawn Davis. The plate hunter has made roads safer, he said.

 

[Rock&Roll]

Very interesting. I wonder what the negative sides of this are. I have a feeling that this could be a very positive thing for the police, providing that it restrained from stepping on our civil liberties. I dunno what to think.

 

[mentok1982]

Let the plate hunter hunt. Unless you stole a car, using a car that belongs to a felon, or you are
using a license plate that is also being used by a criminal, you have nothing to fear.

 

[Martyr]

Let the plate hunter hunt. Unless you stole a car, using a car that belongs to a felon, or you are
using a license plate that is also being used by a criminal, you have nothing to fear.

dont start that bs.


the plate system was put in place specifically so people didnt have to have their names on plates instead. however with computers, wireless internet and readers such as this they minds well have their names there.

 

[soulman901]

Sorry,
I think any judge in this case would rule that since a Vehicle is out in the public that it's not a privacy case. It's not like the cops are scanning while your car is in your garage but out on the road which is public property. The scanner is a technology upgrade over the police officer having to manually type in the license plate number which they can do anyway.
SoulMan901

 

[HAF72]

Finally ACLU is doing something good!!

 

[jaegertech]

An officer can run any plate he see's at any time and it is legal. Automating the process doesn't really change a whole lot.

Pros:

Catches known criminals
Recovers stolen vehicles
Pisses off the ACLU

Cons:
...

Honestly, I'm trying to think of a real downside to having this system on the road and I can't think of much. About the only thing that comes to mind is that this might result in officers who are more dependant on technology than observation.

 

[webdev511]

the plate system was put in place specifically so people didnt have to have their names on plates instead. however with computers, wireless internet and readers such as this they minds well have their names there.

True, there are potential privacy issues with the system. Impartial public oversight is key to insuring that the system is not abused. Much like wiretapping, provided the system is only used to look for plates that have been legally flagged for search rather than set to log every plate it "sees" then it will be a positive tool rather than a Big Brother tool.

Opt In rather than Opt Out.

 

[Tekara]

I'm not to fond of the comment in the article to have it also process misdemeanors as well. Seems kinda excessive to be using it to run down folks with unpaid parking tickets.

 

[sporocyst]

I think the real problem here is this statement:

"Every plate being scanned won't be tossed away but stored for future use. Once a warrant is issued on a plate, officers can pull up the previously scanned data, using coordinates on a map to pinpoint the exact location and time of the car when it was identified."

So basically, they are keeping track of all the cars scanned, even if you have not committed a crime. They are building a database that can predict your transportation pattern. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really want the police tracking my moves.

I think if they only used the data gathered from the plates of law breakers and then trashed all the other data, this would be a great system.

 

[Ockie]

lol @ ACLU. Always protecting the criminals.


People will be against this system until their car is stolen or someone who violated their freedom/security is on the loose with only a license plate number.


This is a good technology and it has proven itself very useful up in Canada... and if you think Canada is anywhere close to a police state... then I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[Ockie]

I think the real problem here is this statement:

"Every plate being scanned won't be tossed away but stored for future use. Once a warrant is issued on a plate, officers can pull up the previously scanned data, using coordinates on a map to pinpoint the exact location and time of the car when it was identified."

So basically, they are keeping track of all the cars scanned, even if you have not committed a crime. They are building a database that can predict your transportation pattern. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really want the police tracking my moves.

I think if they only used the data gathered from the plates of law breakers and then trashed all the other data, this would be a great system.

Why don't you want the police to know where you are at? It's not like they are going to gain a lot of knowledge from the information that it's providing (so they know where you wash your clothes or buy your morning bagels... what is the worst thing they can do with that information..... arrest you for buying a dozen bagles or washing your clothes in cold water?).


Criminals don't belong in our society.

 

[jaegertech]

I think the real problem here is this statement:

"Every plate being scanned won't be tossed away but stored for future use. Once a warrant is issued on a plate, officers can pull up the previously scanned data, using coordinates on a map to pinpoint the exact location and time of the car when it was identified."

So basically, they are keeping track of all the cars scanned, even if you have not committed a crime. They are building a database that can predict your transportation pattern. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really want the police tracking my moves.

I think if they only used the data gathered from the plates of law breakers and then trashed all the other data, this would be a great system.

As long as that quote is an accurate summary of the process, I'm fine with it. "Once a warrant is issued" is the key phrase. As long as the system has a built in restriction on what information can be accessed if no crime is associated with the plate, it sounds fine.

 

[matrix563]

i'm all for catching the bad guy, but i don't like this

 

[Tekara]

Why don't you want the police to know where you are at? It's not like they are going to gain a lot of knowledge from the information that it's providing (so they know where you wash your clothes or buy your morning bagels... what is the worst thing they can do with that information..... arrest you for buying a dozen bagles or washing your clothes in cold water?).


Criminals don't belong in our society.

How about whisk you away in the middle of the night and detain you for several months under the Patriot Act because your driving habits changed?

Anyway, joking aside, issue is taken with these things not because of their current state, but what they could develop into. If the information is of no immediate use to police, then I don't really see any reason for them to keep it in a database for future use.

 

[Ockie]

How about whisk you away in the middle of the night and detain you for several months under the Patriot Act because your driving habits changed?

Anyway, joking aside, issue is taken with these things not because of their current state, but what they could develop into. If the information is of no immediate use to police, then I don't really see any reason for them to keep it in a database for future use.

Well if they want to wisk a tall, fat, pasty white geek away, then let them be I can talk them to death about computers, lol. They might just kick me in the nuts and kick me out the van.


Yes, but realistically, everything can be taken to the next state. This is basically the same as a cop remembering your plate and remembering where he saw it. Kinda like it is for me when somone cuts me off in road rage, I never forget the plate number and car, so when I see it in the future, I'll remember the event This is just an automation process. Police already keep a record, already have your name address and everything with the DMV including your finger prints, they already have the ability to punch in your plate number. This is basically just a time saver. Cops could drive down the road and enter every plate, but for such a low sucess ratio, it takes forever.

The coordinate thing I think will be fruitless, as people travel state to state and some visits only a store once, so it would provide a useless tracking pattern that would provide no value. However, if the person is a terrorist or a known drug runner, then the information provided could be more than useful... but for us joe blows, it's quite worthless.

 

[Ualdayan]

If it was just used to catch criminals it would be fine, eg stolen car, robbery vehicle, etc.

Problem is this:
"Every plate being scanned won't be tossed away but stored for future use."


That's where they say the privacy thing comes into it - even if you've done nothing wrong over time as more and more of the scanners get put into use pretty soon everywhere you go is being saved to later be looked at. It's ok to collect information on everybody's whereabouts each day though, right? I mean it isn't like there has ever been any case of government collected information being lost to the wrong hands.

 

[[+Duracell-]]

I don't see how this is an infringement on our civil liberties. It's not like they can't read our license plate numbers in the first place anyways. I do realize it stores the coordinates where it last spotted your car, but again...it doesn't mean anything.

All for catching the criminals

 

[sporocyst]

...All for catching the criminals

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for catching the criminals too. I just don't want my rights revoked in the name of catching the bad guys. And I feel that my ability to move about without being tracked is one of my basic rights as an American.

Now, after I have committed a crime, I lose that right, and I'm totally cool with that.

 

[LeTUOtter]

And I feel that my ability to move about without being tracked is one of my basic rights as an American.

Not trying to be an ass or anything, but why do you feel that? Why is that a basic right? I'm not saying you're wrong per se, but people often seem to have a rather inflated view of what their "rights" are.

 

[Fenris_Ulf]

Driving is a priviledge granted by the state. Registration of your car and the assignment of a licence plate are evidence of that. And the ACLU doesn't have a leg to stand on. Licence plates on public roads are in the public view - case law has shown time and again that collection of evidence that is in public view is perfectly legal. Personally, I don't mind. If someone steals my car, then I'd be happy if it was recovered using this kind of system. And it might serve as a deterant to criminals in the future.

 

[mavalpha]

...the ACLU thinks that it's an infringement on a driver's right to privacy.

Mistake #1. Driving is a privilege, not a right. That means everything that comes with driving is a privilege. And besides, drivers don't actually have privacy to begin with. If a driver is nude (or just a topless woman), even if it is enclosed (not a convertible), he/she can still be stopped and arrested for exposure. I agree that this is not the same type of privacy, but people often forget the most basic things: "Hey, buddy- I can still see you picking your nose!"

I think the real problem here is this statement:

"Every plate being scanned won't be tossed away but stored for future use. Once a warrant is issued on a plate, officers can pull up the previously scanned data, using coordinates on a map to pinpoint the exact location and time of the car when it was identified."

So basically, they are keeping track of all the cars scanned, even if you have not committed a crime. They are building a database that can predict your transportation pattern. I don't know about you guys, but I don't really want the police tracking my moves.

I think if they only used the data gathered from the plates of law breakers and then trashed all the other data, this would be a great system.

This is the part that bothers me too- I could justify keeping it for two or three hours (average length of time before a stolen car gets phoned in), but anything longer than that oversteps the boundaries, IMO.

 

[sporocyst]

Not trying to be an ass or anything, but why do you feel that? Why is that a basic right? I'm not saying you're wrong per se, but people often seem to have a rather inflated view of what their "rights" are.

I would consider a computer system that tracks my whereabout to be a violation of my privacy and Americans' privacy is protected by the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut for example. While this case deals with medical privacy, it has been used many times as a basis for rulings that go beyond the facts of this case but still relate to personal privacy.

 

[LeTUOtter]

I would consider a computer system that tracks my whereabout to be a violation of my privacy and Americans' privacy is protected by the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut for example. While this case deals with medical privacy, it has been used many times as a basis for rulings that go beyond the facts of this case but still relate to personal privacy.

Eh, that ruling was sketchy when it was made. Given that the constitution doesn't mention or explicitly protect a right to privacy, I find it a stretch to apply it to much of anything else, much less this "problem". I'm all about having privacy, no doubt, but like I said, people (even the courts) like to overstate what they are "entitled" to under the Constitution.

 

[Monkey God]

As long as the system has a built in restriction on what information can be accessed if no crime is associated with the plate, it sounds fine.

yeah the government is REAL good at keeping information private and away from the bad guys

posts 1000 links to CIA, FBI whomever losing laptops
posts 1000 links to various government agencies losing private information (SSN's, veterans info, etc)

 

[mpcamer1220]

It was my understanding that license plates are actually owned by the state, until they are expired. You are just renting them from the state, they are not yours until the plates have expired or you have new ones.


Because of this, if it is state owned property, they have every right to monitor it. Unless I am wrong about this in the first place.

 

[sporocyst]

Eh, that ruling was sketchy when it was made. Given that the constitution doesn't mention or explicitly protect a right to privacy, I find it a stretch to apply it to much of anything else, much less this "problem". I'm all about having privacy, no doubt, but like I said, people (even the courts) like to overstate what they are "entitled" to under the Constitution.

It's not so much that I feel this ruling proves I have a right to privacy as it shows why so many people feel they have that right. The ruling was that protection of privacy could logically be inferred from the spirit of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court tends to feel this way, I can see why many American's feel the same.

<Off topic>
One thing I don't get is, if so many American's, myself included, feel that we have a right to privacy, why isn't it in the Constitution. I mean who is supposed to be in charge here anyways? Us right? It just doesn't really feel that way.

 

[sporocyst]

It was my understanding that license plates are actually owned by the state, until they are expired. You are just renting them from the state, they are not yours until the plates have expired or you have new ones.


Because of this, if it is state owned property, they have every right to monitor it. Unless I am wrong about this in the first place.

I'm not sure if it works that way. Seems like that could lead to some odd things. My driver's license is "owned" by the state. But I definitely don't think they have a right to put an RFID strip in it and track me all day. And you can't really argue that having a driver's license is a privilege as it is required by law (drivers license or state id) to have to purchase age restricted substances, i.e. tobacco and liquor.

 

[Ockie]

I'm not sure if it works that way. Seems like that could lead to some odd things. My driver's license is "owned" by the state. But I definitely don't think they have a right to put an RFID strip in it and track me all day. And you can't really argue that having a driver's license is a privilege as it is required by law (drivers license or state id) to have to purchase age restricted substances, i.e. tobacco and liquor.

To track your license vs a plate scanning camera is two very diffrent things. Now if you are talking about having your drivers license scanned at each store or your credit card and that they map out your locations... well that's already here and been done.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

Cough.

Since when do we trust the govt to store our personal information? This pails in comparison to the utterly ILLEGAL act the Homeland Security Dept and State Dept just commited in making agreements with the EU last week.

To force airlines to turn over expanded personal information to HS... including "POLITICAL OPINIONS" and "SEXUAL PREFERENCE", etc. To be added to govt databases and held for 15 yrs.

This is just more. No the Govt has NO RIGHT to track your movements. No RIGHT at all. I know this for a fact. How do I know you ask?

I beat... yes BEAT... a speeding ticket in NH years ago. I was zipping upo 93 headed for work in my then very new Corvette. It was the first decent day of spring, windows down, top off and doing 95 in light traffic on a highway. I zip over the border, and suddenly there's a cop walking out into the road flagging me down. (I had the best radar etector on earth at the time, no beep).

So I get arrested for 95, anything over 84 was arrest. Cop was great, took me to the ATM to get bail cash, and then took me back to the car after bailing out.

So I do some research. I was pinched because the "AIRPLANE" clocked me with "VASCAR" aka stopwatch.

Ok, so waht. Well turns out it is ILLEGAL to place someone under surveilence without A) a warrant, or B) notice in plane sight that you're being watched.

The sign informing people of aircraft monitoring was 2 miles INSIDE the state, after where I was stopped. So I argued it was unconstitutional to have surveiled me and arrested me..... the JUDGE AGREED. Case dismissed. The state of NH ended the airplane use 2 weeks later... to avoid thousands of people filing suit to get thier $$ back

So if the cops want to use this device, they have to do it OPENLY in plain sight with notification BEFORE the plate shot would be taken. Kind of defeats the whole idea of sneaking up and gotcha! You dont get to GOTCHA. That's why they have to park with thier lights on, etc.

The cops rarely understand the constitutional rights of citizens. It's not something seiously drummed into thier heads, as that would kinda commie or sociallistic or ...er...gay? I guess.

*******

On the "driving is a priviledge" bullshit. Well the CONSTITUTION provides for the free unobstructed passage of all citizens on the public roads. This goes all the way back to the horse and buggy days. Modern technology and the sprawl of the nation has made the REALITY of fulfilling that constitutional RIGHT the requirement to drive a car, among other things.

This impacts the actions of Homeland Security at airports/train stations/bus stations as well. The FREE and unobstructed-ness of our travel is being more and more limited in direct violation of the constitution.

It is my firm belief that a drivers license is no longer a PRIVILEDGE.but instead is a RIGHT. Still subject to rules and regulations (as are firearms), but the concept of it being some priviledge grantred by the almighty benevolent govt is at an end.

 

[jarman]

ACLU thinks that it's an infringement on a driver's right to privacy.

Fuck the ACLU! The only purpose that the ACLU serves is to push the agenda of the socialist liberal minority. Like every other position the ACLU takes, it's another opportunity to bitch about something that is completely legal and just might make it harder for criminals to hide beneath the veil of political correctness.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

"is completely legal"... er, no it's not. Well, under THE RULE OF LAW it is not.

Under the "THE RULE OF CONSERVATIVE LAW" it probably is.

Im sure we can just ask AG Gonzolas, he'd clarify it for us.

 

[Ockie]

Cough.

Since when do we trust the govt to store our personal information? This pails in comparison to the utterly ILLEGAL act the Homeland Security Dept and State Dept just commited in making agreements with the EU last week.

To force airlines to turn over expanded personal information to HS... including "POLITICAL OPINIONS" and "SEXUAL PREFERENCE", etc. To be added to govt databases and held for 15 yrs.

You really think sexual prefrence is going to be the end all to our privacy? I'm straight... oops, now I may just be in the govt books!!

Seriously, most people will openly state thier sexual prefrence, anyways, I don't see the relation to this... anyways.

This is just more. No the Govt has NO RIGHT to track your movements. No RIGHT at all. I know this for a fact. How do I know you ask?

So you used a plane observation to judge the entire constitution and freedoms of Americans? With this logic, we can't track terrorists nor can we track ANY criminals... including pedofiles.

I beat... yes BEAT... a speeding ticket in NH years ago. I was zipping upo 93 headed for work in my then very new Corvette. It was the first decent day of spring, windows down, top off and doing 95 in light traffic on a highway. I zip over the border, and suddenly there's a cop walking out into the road flagging me down. (I had the best radar etector on earth at the time, no beep).

So I get arrested for 95, anything over 84 was arrest. Cop was great, took me to the ATM to get bail cash, and then took me back to the car after bailing out.

So I do some research. I was pinched because the "AIRPLANE" clocked me with "VASCAR" aka stopwatch.

Ok, so waht. Well turns out it is ILLEGAL to place someone under surveilence without A) a warrant, or B) notice in plane sight that you're being watched.

The sign informing people of aircraft monitoring was 2 miles INSIDE the state, after where I was stopped. So I argued it was unconstitutional to have surveiled me and arrested me..... the JUDGE AGREED. Case dismissed. The state of NH ended the airplane use 2 weeks later... to avoid thousands of people filing suit to get thier $$ back

So basically you got out of a law that you broke. To be honest, you should have paid the fine, you broke the law and weaseled your way out on technicality. Kinda like OJ simpson getting out for murder on technicalities.

I highly doub't they terminated the program because of that once incident.... and FYI, many states are still operational on this program.

So if the cops want to use this device, they have to do it OPENLY in plain sight with notification BEFORE the plate shot would be taken. Kind of defeats the whole idea of sneaking up and gotcha! You dont get to GOTCHA. That's why they have to park with thier lights on, etc.

I assume we gotta do the same for terrorists and drug lords? Police park with thier lights off in most states, the whole objective to catching you speeding is to cause you to slow down... thus if you don't know where they are you are less likley to speed.

This is an automation, not really an observational reporting.

The cops rarely understand the constitutional rights of citizens. It's not something seiously drummed into thier heads, as that would kinda commie or sociallistic or ...er...gay? I guess.

Cops protect others, thats what they do understand. They catch people like you thinking you're hot in your new corvette roasting it down the street... before you accidentally kill someone.

On the "driving is a priviledge" bullshit. Well the CONSTITUTION provides for the free unobstructed passage of all citizens on the public roads. This goes all the way back to the horse and buggy days. Modern technology and the sprawl of the nation has made the REALITY of fulfilling that constitutional RIGHT the requirement to drive a car, among other things.

Does the constition provide free passage for criminals too?

This impacts the actions of Homeland Security at airports/train stations/bus stations as well. The FREE and unobstructed-ness of our travel is being more and more limited in direct violation of the constitution.

You can bitch about airport security all you want, but I can assure you most of the passengers would prefer not to be blown up by some radical.

It is my firm belief that a drivers license is no longer a PRIVILEDGE.but instead is a RIGHT. Still subject to rules and regulations (as are firearms), but the concept of it being some priviledge grantred by the almighty benevolent govt is at an end.

It's still a privelage, as you have to pass test and take renewals. If it was a right, then even a 95 year old grandma should be allowed to it, just as she would have a right to bear arms. Kids should have a right to it also, as they can own and shoot weapons purchased by a guardian.

 

[FrgMstr]

I'm not sure if it works that way. Seems like that could lead to some odd things. My driver's license is "owned" by the state. But I definitely don't think they have a right to put an RFID strip in it and track me all day. And you can't really argue that having a driver's license is a privilege as it is required by law (drivers license or state id) to have to purchase age restricted substances, i.e. tobacco and liquor.

I think since they own it, they have a right to do anything they want to with it. You have the RIGHT not to get a license. Now putting them in a state owned yet required ID card might be a bit different legally.

 

[Ockie]

"is completely legal"... er, no it's not. Well, under THE RULE OF LAW it is not.

Under the "THE RULE OF CONSERVATIVE LAW" it probably is.

Im sure we can just ask AG Gonzolas, he'd clarify it for us.

I'm curious how you find the ACLU video guides on how to hide your drugs and weapons and to get away from police even if you are breaking the law?

Oh and thanks for quickly lableing this turning it into a left vs right.

 

[FrgMstr]

"is completely legal"... er, no it's not. Well, under THE RULE OF LAW it is not.

Under the "THE RULE OF CONSERVATIVE LAW" it probably is.

Im sure we can just ask AG Gonzolas, he'd clarify it for us.

Banned for a week for trolling/flamebaiting.

 

[JethroXP]

The state already knows to whom the plate is registered, to what car, and the address of the person who registered it. If they already know where I live, why would I care if they know where I drive as well, especially if it will help catch criminals?

I'd like to file a lawsuit against the ACLU, for violating my right to live free from crime and the threat of criminals. If the ACLU won every suit they started, we'd all be living in constant fear because criminals would have far more rights than the people they victimize.

 

[FrgMstr]

Next.

 

[Phelptwan]

I don't really have a problem with this device...

 

[raz-0]

Let the plate hunter hunt. Unless you stole a car, using a car that belongs to a felon, or you are
using a license plate that is also being used by a criminal, you have nothing to fear.

The Issue I think isn't the plate hunter scanning the traffic for perps, it is the fact that the plate hunter logs people's location and tracks them regardless of what you have done.


If it were just watching the flow of traffic better than a human can and said car X has a warrant for the owner or is stolen, and the patrol went and pulled it over, that wouldn't be bad.

Why it is saving the scan time and GPS coordinates of everything it sees is a bit fishy. At the very least it is a sloppy design that can be abused.