So this reporter asked to see how many times his license plate had been scanned. The result was 112 photos of his car at various locations. Don't we have some LEOs on here? What does our City log?

http://freedomfromgovernment.us/your-license-plate-is-scanned-tracked-and-logged-how-much-more-will-you-take/

8/13/2014 4:10:22 PM

thanks, Obama

8/13/2014 4:27:43 PM

On crime shows they use this info all the time. Toll Booths record all kinds of info.

I even saw a forensic files where they got hold of a cash paid toll ticket and lifted a print off of it to prove the suspect was not at home, but on the way back from the crime scene when he said he was at home.

8/13/2014 5:58:30 PM

your iphone records where you are all the time anyways so who cares about plates

8/13/2014 6:48:11 PM

They work really well, but in theory, if you don't commit a crime then you have nothing to worry about. But I don't like the fact someone in a position of power can break the law and use the information to establish my patterns in order to target me.

I have no idea why anyone would target me, maybe one day big brother would want to crack down on ford owners? Who knows.

Each city has its own laws on how long they keep data.

8/13/2014 6:56:32 PM

But if you didn't do anything wrong, why do you care?

8/13/2014 7:43:09 PM

Sweeping data collection can be exploited by a person who has access to it and the intent to use it for a nefarious reason.

Humans are flawed and we make mistakes, is it worth having that much data out there that may be used for the wrong reasons but can be used for good? I don't know, I really don't.

8/13/2014 7:59:33 PM

A cop could use it to set you up for a crime he committed.

Sound impossible? A cop in NC is in prison for murdering a cocktail waitress, he lied and tried to say he saw her husbands truck in the area at the time of the crime....but he was the one that did it right after he got off duty. He pulled her over using his cruiser, kidnapped, and murdered her. Then tried to tell the detectives it must have been her husband.

The husband was lucky that there was a way to prove his story, but he could have just as easily been fingered for the crime if detectives did not dig deeper.

8/13/2014 9:51:36 PM

Quote :

"if you don't commit a crime then you have nothing to worry about"

FUCK. THAT.

8/13/2014 10:09:25 PM

fucking dammit duke

i had that exact phrase copied and damn near pasted

my comments were more mean type though

wussy

8/14/2014 3:16:49 AM

OCR of license plates is a really, really easy computer vision problem.

8/14/2014 3:32:57 AM

[Edited on August 14, 2014 at 3:33 AM. Reason : ]

8/14/2014 3:32:57 AM

Quote :

"your iphone records where you are all the time anyways so who cares about plates"

This seems like a bigger concern


....Since we all are gas-burning car hating city dwellers and urbanites that zoom around on our powered unicycles

8/14/2014 7:39:52 AM

Quote :

"But if you didn't do anything wrong, why do you care?"

This is the same line of thinking that got us DUI checkpoints. Most arrests and tickets at DUI check points are not from DUIs. The fact that this data is being stored should be enough to scare anyone.

Will police one day be able to use the fact that you frequent certain places as probable cause for a search? Sure seems like a fourth amendment problem to me.

8/14/2014 9:10:52 AM

lol at the guy who openly flaunts the law saying "fuck that" about not breaking the law

8/14/2014 10:12:44 PM

^^ I was making fun of him saying that you shouldn't care, but then saying that he cared. I think it's wrong.

8/14/2014 10:18:10 PM

http://photomaskcover.myshopify.com

just ordered 2.

8/16/2014 1:47:36 AM

This is funny.

An anti government and PRO "civil rights" and freedom group is trying to protest something that is exactly what they are doing and believe in?

It's not a violation of civil rights or privacy for a citizen or news media to drive around video taping and recording everything they see and hear in a public place but the government and law enforcement don't share the same rights?

Basically, if you're in a public place with the freedoms to record, written, photography, video or other means then you're just exercising your rights. But if a police car with cameras driving around records this information it's a violation of your freedoms?

I just don't understand the logic.

No one tells average Joe or the media you can only film, record, or photograph certain things and keep that information for a certain amount of time. Why does the government or other agency (who are people) not get the same freedoms?


On a side note, this actually does more good than harm in my opinion... I know it to be used to help SOLVE crimes and it's a useful tool when locating stolen cars or cars operated by wanted criminals..

8/16/2014 7:05:52 PM

The privacy issue is in regards to keeping records without clear rules on who can access them and for how long. The database is the privacy issue, not really the camera.

8/16/2014 7:13:45 PM

I understand that's the "main" concern there. But again, who regulates the data and information that you, media, or I were to collect?


If you drive through my neighborhood and I take a picture of you as you drive by, am I only able to keep that picture for a certain amount of time? Post it on facebook? Print it in a newsletter?

It's simply information, in a public place, obtained freely.

8/16/2014 7:27:14 PM

the difference is, YOU can't arrest me and put me in jail. various government entities have that power.

8/16/2014 7:40:31 PM

The same statute of limitations apply though. If information from that database is used to connect you to a crime it very well could be evidence, but if it's a misdemeanor crime then after two years it isn't relevant in most cases. But for a felony where there is no statute of limitations, then sure, why can't it be used against you if that is evidence of you (in this case vehicle) being at a certain location at a certain time.

It's absolutely no different than other databases, it just collects information a different way that makes people feel icky.

8/16/2014 7:50:52 PM

no it really is different. there's a reason we limit government's powers in ways that we don't for private individuals.

8/16/2014 8:15:46 PM

Quote :

"Basically, if you're in a public place with the freedoms to record, written, photography, video or other means then you're just exercising your rights. But if a police car with cameras driving around records this information it's a violation of your freedoms?"

Quote :

"http://The privacy issue is in regards to keeping records without clear rules on who can access them and for how long. The database is the privacy issue, not really the camera. "

Exactly. The database, and what they can assimilate and do with it (or potentially do with it in the future, since it can be stored forever) is the problem, not the camera itself.

and yeah, it's a touchy balance to strike, legally.


This is why I'm not totally sold on the idea trumpeted by many leftists and libertarians about having the police have cameras rolling all the time, whatever they're doing. I see that as being a double-edged sword and am not sure it's a net gain.

8/16/2014 10:00:29 PM

Plate readers suck in NC. When the State was issuing plates with red letters, they would come back all fucked up.

8/20/2014 7:30:30 PM

Quote :

"This is funny. An anti government and PRO "civil rights" and freedom group is trying to protest something that is exactly what they are doing and believe in? It's not a violation of civil rights or privacy for a citizen or news media to drive around video taping and recording everything they see and hear in a public place but the government and law enforcement don't share the same rights? Basically, if you're in a public place with the freedoms to record, written, photography, video or other means then you're just exercising your rights. But if a police car with cameras driving around records this information it's a violation of your freedoms? I just don't understand the logic. No one tells average Joe or the media you can only film, record, or photograph certain things and keep that information for a certain amount of time. Why does the government or other agency (who are people) not get the same freedoms? "

The difference is with media, you can take steps to control if you are photographed or not. With the government, there are laws that prevent you from obscuring your plate.

8/21/2014 9:26:08 AM

Quote :

"This is funny. An anti government and PRO "civil rights" and freedom group is trying to protest something that is exactly what they are doing and believe in? It's not a violation of civil rights or privacy for a citizen or news media to drive around video taping and recording everything they see and hear in a public place but the government and law enforcement don't share the same rights? Basically, if you're in a public place with the freedoms to record, written, photography, video or other means then you're just exercising your rights. But if a police car with cameras driving around records this information it's a violation of your freedoms? I just don't understand the logic. No one tells average Joe or the media you can only film, record, or photograph certain things and keep that information for a certain amount of time. Why does the government or other agency (who are people) not get the same freedoms?"

you have got to be kidding me. have you never read the constitution? have you never heard of protection of privacy FROM government? How in the holy fuckity fuck fuck can you think this if you're familiar and agree with the constitution to at least some degree? even during my conservative viewpoint days (e.g. aligning with current conservative views), I didn't believe in the shit you are posting. fuck.

[Edited on August 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/21/2014 9:48:57 AM

^

See, the problem is I'm not talking about your privacy. We were discussing license plate readers and the length of time that the databases they create should be kept.

Reread the post that you quoted. Legally obtained information (data) gathered in public IS NOT PRIVATE.

We aren't talking about government ninjas opening your garage doors and taking pictures of your cars and keeping them forever.

8/21/2014 9:16:13 PM

we are talking about government ninjas typing in your name and finding out everywhere your car has been since whenever for whatever reason they want

8/21/2014 9:18:49 PM

Yeah, we are talking about random locations where these cameras hit and catch the plates, not global monitoring 24/7.


What about all of the cameras and CCTV's ect everywhere on everyone's property?

It's 2014, everything gets recorded all the time just about everywhere

8/21/2014 10:58:10 PM

If LEO could query private CCTVs on demand without a warrant, you better believe that would also be a huge invasion of privacy

I think you are trolling

8/21/2014 11:19:02 PM

If they hired an autistic savant officer that could remember everything he's seen, would it be a violation to have this officer report and testify on vehicle locations? Why does replacing this theoretical officer with a robot, when he retires, change the situation?

I'm the best person at my job for certain tasks, i know they would love it if they could have a robot do my job (and probably will in like 15 years). It doesn't seem like this should be prevented just because a robot can do it better.

IMO, if the task being performed could theoretically be done by a human, i don't believe it should be banned. If the cameras somehow were x-raying the cars and fingerprinting them separately of the license plate, or using aerial drones to do collection sweep of neighborhoods, that's excessive. But to me, merely photographing plates from the patrol cars doesn't seem too bad (although it would need heavy regulation).

What tools would be available 100 years from now? Should cops not be allowed to use cybernetic implants or other procedures to enhance their perception? What about when vehicles are self driving, where mapping the surroundings is innate to the operation of the vehicle, should officers not be allowed to log their maps when it comes to investigating crimes?

8/21/2014 11:37:33 PM

It can't be done by a person

8/22/2014 7:45:02 AM

I think cops should have a shiny tin badge, a wooden nightstick, and an old rusty colt 6-shooter, an unencrypted, publicly broadcast radio, a personnel and vehicle mounted camera with microphone, a can of pepper spray, and a good pair of boots.

8/22/2014 8:45:08 AM

as to the claim that its no different than an officer, just look at the concurring opinion Supreme Court's decision in US v. Jones. The issue was over GPS tracking of vehicles and whether that was a search. The concurring opinion stated that short term tracking was okay, however long term tracking impinges on the expectation of privacy. In a similar fashion, having one camera with data that is destroyed after some period of time would be okay, but having cameras all over the city with a searchable database with few rules or oversight would violate someone's expectation of privacy due to the different nature of the type of information that comes from long term surveillance vs. short.

or you could just use some common sense to understand why its not okay without clearly defined rules and oversight

8/22/2014 8:59:26 AM

Quote :

"See, the problem is I'm not talking about your privacy. We were discussing license plate readers and the length of time that the databases they create should be kept. Reread the post that you quoted. Legally obtained information (data) gathered in public IS NOT PRIVATE. We aren't talking about government ninjas opening your garage doors and taking pictures of your cars and keeping them forever."

But we are talking about privacy. Just because you are in public doesn't mean you lose your rights to privacy. Sure, you can be watched, observed, or maybe even followed for a bit. Your tag can be run. But that's a far cry from an automated machine reading every plate in sight, running every plate in sight in seconds, and creating databases of all this information. That is an invasion of privacy.

8/22/2014 9:06:51 AM

But if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care?!

8/22/2014 9:08:35 AM

I'm not arguing that the databases need to have rules and regulations.

The question previously argued was them being unconstitutional and how long the data should be stored. You don't like it that since an officer isn't hand writing them down and recording, but that a camera (which doesn't scan 360°) can record them as it drives by? Again, it's 2014, as humans and institutes we will continue to progress in technology and how things operate efficiently.

I think the data being legally obtained should have no expiration date. Access to the database should be regulated though.

I'm all for the constitution and protection of freedoms and rights. But what you hint at and what some people think is far off from the truth and what can/can't happen. If you own something, and it's yours, property/house/business etc etc then great, that's the most private and safe place you control and can only be infringed upon by legal authority.

The moment your ass walks out your front door on to the sidewalk and starts driving on a public street, you're fair game to be watched, followed, photographed, video taped etc. BECAUSE THAT'S EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS.

As long as federal/state laws and/or local ordinance are being adhered by then by coming in to the public, you're subject to everything that someone could legally do.


Also I would argue that US Vs Jones is not applicable. You're talking about information gathered from a specific device of a specific person/car for information about their constant whereabouts which includes when they drive in private property etc etc etc.
We are talking about a manually operated police vehicle riding around gathering random pieces of data wherever they decide to drive at random times.

8/22/2014 10:19:11 AM

i wasn't citing the entire case, i was citing a part of the concurring opinion that is relevant to this. also, with enough cameras you don't need to target a specific vehicle because you can just query that vehicle and get results from every camera and with enough cameras you have a full record.

it's no fucking wonder that our civil liberties have been dissolved when people are so willing to throw them away. this is more proof that we can not trust cops.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 10:22:35 AM

Again, this isn't fucking batman, we are talking about a car mounted camera that only goes where the cop goes. Not a city full of cameras constantly capturing everyone's vehicle and movements.

The only thing this proves is you have a conspiracy theory type ignorance, unrealistic sense of self worth and entitlement, and you have absolutely no idea how much good something like this is currently used for and can be used for.




"OMG there's going to be a record of my car in front of Raleigh Times on this date and time when I told my wife I was at work, surely a cop is going to use this to extort me given the opportunity"

Get a grip on reality, you have no idea the usefulness and good certain things do. You just assume all is corrupt and that the life outside your little bubble is peachy.

8/22/2014 11:29:23 AM

Why do you even care about privacy if you do nothing wrong?

8/22/2014 12:28:04 PM

I don't think you understand where the word privacy comes from. Root word, PRIVATE.

It's not private if it's in PUBLIC.

8/22/2014 12:41:35 PM

The Supreme Court disagrees

also, your position that things being useful is justification to erode rights is typical and scary. It's why we have lost so many post 9/11 and post war on drugs, because it's helpful for law enforcement and if you aren't doing anything wrong why would you care about it?

sad. you are part of what is wrong with this country today.

8/22/2014 12:46:43 PM

Quote :

"It's not private if it's in PUBLIC."

wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

Quote :

"The moment your ass walks out your front door on to the sidewalk and starts driving on a public street, you're fair game to be watched, followed, photographed, video taped etc. BECAUSE THAT'S EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS."

Not entirely true, but at least somewhat true. However, there is a huge difference within this "everyone" you cite... one subset of everyone would be the government. Which is and should be limited in it's ability to spy on you.

I think there should be tough, cumbersome, and annoying hurdles for the government to spy on citizens. Even in public. You don't lose your privacy rights because you're in public. Sure, you're opening yourself to be seen, observed, and potentially recorded by some type of device. But when the government willingly, knowingly, and intentionally, sets its sights on individuals with a purpose, a line has been crossed. I think there should be a mountain atop that line.

8/22/2014 12:56:02 PM

if license plate scanners are actually no different than having police officers observing things, then why do we need them?

8/22/2014 12:57:20 PM

See you're talking what I said out of context by saying it's only justified because it's useful. That's not true.




See, you're both going to the extreme that if taken literally by what you're saying and how you're saying it that it's unconstitutional for an entity of the government to observe you period, even in public. You say "spy" which is why i know you're either don't know what spy means or you're not listening to anything this thread is about.

SPY

Quote :

" 1. a person employed by a government to obtain secret information or intelligence about another, usually hostile, country, especially with reference to military or naval affairs. 2. a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others. 3. a person who seeks to obtain confidential information about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor: "

So now we talk about a uniformed police officer, driving in a marked patrol vehicle, with obvious camera's on it. NOT SPYING.


"The government is spying on me and invading my privacy because a uniform police officer observed me in public."
What you're literally saying.

8/22/2014 1:05:28 PM

Maybe you misread this part. I clearly define being observed and being spied upon. Very different things.

Quote :

"Sure, you're opening yourself to be seen, observed, and potentially recorded by some type of device. But when the government willingly, knowingly, and intentionally, sets its sights on individuals with a purpose, a line has been crossed. "

If you're recorded by a dashcam because an office drives by, then OK. If the cop willingly, knowingly, and intentionally decides to record you, follow you, and/or collect any information on you for a particular purpose or set of purposes, then that's very different. License plate scanners are fall into this category. They are singling out individuals, purposefully, collecting data, and storing said data in order to create a case against someone.

[Edited on August 22, 2014 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2014 1:09:33 PM

Quote :

"if license plate scanners are actually no different than having police officers observing things, then why do we need them?"

efficiency. Sure, the police department could make an entire "squad" of observers who go around photographing and logging data randomly. Costing salary, gas, wear/tear, etc..

Or, Strap a non intrusive camera on a police car that is already being utilized to conduct business and it can do the same work and much less cost.



Same reason we have police cars, computers/printers, tasers, radios, etc etc etc... They aren't NECESSARY, but they sure do make things more efficient.

8/22/2014 1:09:54 PM

Quote :

"If you're recorded by a dashcam because an office drives by, then OK. If the cop willingly, knowingly, and intentionally decides to record you, follow you, and/or collect any information on you for a particular purpose or set of purposes, then that's very different. License plate scanners are fall into this category. They are singling out individuals, purposefully, collecting data, and storing said data in order to create a case against someone."

Again, you're wrong, that's not what they do.
They are attached to a vehicle which drives around conducting the normal duties of a police officer. They don't single anyone out at all, they randomly collect data as it drives by them or around them in a public street. They don't follow and map and single out vehicles.

In fact, the sole purpose of these is to make it "another set of eyes" for the police officer who is driving around in the vehicle in which they are equipped. Most of these camera programs run through the computer which is connected to NCIC and the main purpose is to literally capture plates and check them to be stolen or for wanted persons. In doing so it creates a data file as that is what is compared to the NCIC database.

8/22/2014 1:13:51 PM

but why is it more efficient if its doing the same thing? of course it's not doing the same thing, it's more efficient because it is capturing a lot more data and easily putting it into a form that can by queried at any time.

an even more efficient method would be to put license plate scanners at every intersection, the record of where every vehicle is and has been would be very useful for law enforcement

8/22/2014 1:15:30 PM