http://www.dailytech.com/ACLU+Investigates+Whether+Raleigh+License+Plate+Scanning+Violates+Privacy+RIghts/article18016.htm

http://www.raleightelegram.com/2010040101.html

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/7331240/

RPD is installing cameras on their cruisers that can rapidly scan license plates (hundreds of plates per second).

The system itself doesn't really bother me. The non-existent data retention policy and potential for police to track your movement around town does.

4/3/2010 9:48:37 AM

there is already a thread on this, but i too don't have a problem with the camera system... just the data retention with no policy about how long they will keep it.

4/3/2010 10:29:33 AM

oh wow, it's like geo-catching.

But with horribly spotty data.
Only it's exclusively the police department who will have access to the data.
And no one will ever look at it unless they're trying to screw you.

4/3/2010 10:31:05 AM

Quote :

"oh wow, it's like geo-catching."

wut?

4/3/2010 1:40:43 PM

bump for pic



is this the camera system they're talking about? i've seen a few patrol cars with these things on top and couldn't figure out what the hell they were

i don't really have a problem with the scanning of the plates.. the DMV already has all the info, and the RPD officer sitting behind you at the traffic light is already going to be running all the plates he possibly can to try and get a hit on something

and it isn't like there's some huge database that keeps track of when and where your license plate was last spotted... or is there?

8/16/2010 8:45:26 PM

I think it's a good idea.

8/16/2010 10:17:07 PM

I don't think I like this at all.

8/16/2010 10:22:06 PM

I view this sort of like I view the GZM... I don't really like it, but its hard to protest it on anything more than emotional grounds. Seems totally legal and legit.

8/16/2010 10:23:06 PM

Quote :

"and it isn't like there's some huge database that keeps track of when and where your license plate was last spotted... or is there?"

basically there is, and there is no policy on how long they keep the data. the scanning is fine, the record keeping is not.

8/16/2010 10:30:19 PM

why the fuck not? point to where it is unconstitutional...

8/16/2010 11:37:11 PM

i'm okay with it. another good theft deterrent and it migh get more idiots / illegal drivers off the road

8/16/2010 11:52:47 PM

^^something about "unreasonable searches" in the Fourth Amendment
OTOH there's also the notion of "implied consent" while on the road

Quote :

"And no one will ever look at it unless they're trying to screw you."

actually that's the part we're afraid of

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 1:36 AM. Reason : and no we're not all subversives

8/17/2010 1:35:56 AM

well apparently if something is constitutional, we should promote it.

8/17/2010 7:09:51 AM

This isnt a new concept, parking enforcement officers have been using the technology for a while now.

If you watch the show "Parking Wars" you will see it in use quite a lot. They drive enforcement vans around with a cargo area full of boots. When the computer/cameras spot a car that has unpaid tickets, they hop out and boot it. Rinse and repeat.

I'll admit though, in all the times I have watched that show, it never crossed my mind that they could be storing and using the location data for things other than the parking enforcement.

8/17/2010 7:59:43 AM

only criminals need to worry. pay your taxes, pay your tickets, keep your registration up to date and go to court for your court dates and you should have no problem. the key to staying off the radar is...tuh dahhhhhhhh....staying off the radar. don't do anything stupid!

8/17/2010 8:47:49 AM

^wrong.

Quote :

"basically there is, and there is no policy on how long they keep the data. the scanning is fine, the record keeping is not."

QFT

we keep letting the government have more and more personal information. we keep allowing them to slowly erode freedoms. we keep letting them in our door, just one little midget step at a time. soon enough, this country will be complete shit and the opposite of what it was supposed to be.

limited government, limited interference, power by the people not by the man, limited government control, limited government knowledge. 'tis what we need back.

[Edited on August 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2010 9:05:34 AM

But is this system really allowing them to erode our freedoms more than they already are? I mean, I certainly understand the potential negative consequences of storing this data and I agree that there should be a stated policy about how long the data is stored. BUT, isn't this system simply automating a process that has been in practice for a long time?

For as long as radios and computers have been in cruisers, Police have been running plates to catch offenders. This was just the manual version of this new system, with just the same potential for storing data (albeit requiring much more effort).

8/17/2010 9:22:17 AM

As long as they're not allowed to store this data in a centralized or networked location that allows for the tracking of a vehicle's movement, I'm okay with this. As other people have noted, the idea of police running license plates is not exactly a new practice, and as a person who had his car stolen at one point, I like the idea of this technology. One could always compromise and say, allow these mass volume scanners to only identify "flagged" vehicles and not record any other vehicle.

8/17/2010 10:04:32 AM

^as long as my individual information is thrown out immediately after being scanned I have no problem with this. If not, then I do.

8/17/2010 10:48:08 AM

I'm a law-abiding citizen, so I have no problems with this system.


Of course, the moment I'm wrongly accused, I will be 100% against it. But, for now, I'm for it.

8/17/2010 10:52:08 AM

^^ Yeah, I'm thinking that any info on the vehicle is not even pulled unless the license plate number triggers a flag. Then you bring in the data about the vehicle, its owner, and status.

8/17/2010 3:39:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm a law-abiding citizen, so I have no problems with this system. Of course, the moment I'm wrongly accused, I will be 100% against it. But, for now, I'm for it."

What if you were wrongly accused but then could use the data from this system as an alibi that clears your name?

8/17/2010 3:49:43 PM

Quote :

"the scanning is fine, the record keeping is not."

Yep.

All the scanning does is do the cop's job faster. It's just scale. No doubt some cops are quicker at checking out license plates than others, so no big deal. But there is no cop who will remember all the license plate info he ever sees forever.

8/17/2010 3:55:34 PM

Quote :

"What if you were wrongly accused but then could use the data from this system as an alibi that clears your name? "

Seems like that really wouldn't happen without a trusted third party. While I tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt, we all have heard of times when a key piece of evidence just happened to not be available because of a "malfunction".

There really needs to be some sort of trusted third party who holds electronic records for police and who can make those records equally available to the people the records are about.

8/17/2010 5:40:49 PM

I didn't read the article, but do any of them state the depth of the information that is store? If this thing scans your plate, is it connected to gps?

If an officer runs your plate, it is store in a database; the time, date, and requester or logged for auditing/abuse. It does not store physical location and I doubt this system will either.

8/17/2010 5:50:33 PM

Quote :

"But is this system really allowing them to erode our freedoms more than they already are? I mean, I certainly understand the potential negative consequences of storing this data and I agree that there should be a stated policy about how long the data is stored. BUT, isn't this system simply automating a process that has been in practice for a long time? For as long as radios and computers have been in cruisers, Police have been running plates to catch offenders. This was just the manual version of this new system, with just the same potential for storing data (albeit requiring much more effort)."

yes, computers store everything so it is very possible that there could be a database, intentional or not. but just the nature of this system makes it way too easy for the government to create such a database, publicly announced or not. the technology is good for it's base purpose, quick scanning of plates.... but there need to be major safeguards (legally and technologically) preventing the storage or use of this data outside of it's base purpose.

8/17/2010 7:33:01 PM

it's is a contraction for "it is".

8/17/2010 7:59:10 PM

Quote :

"Constitution of the United States, Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Quote :

"U.S. v. Davis, 645 F.Supp.2d 541 (Federal District Court for Western District of NC 2009): The temporary detention of individuals during a traffic stop constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the stop of an automobile is subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be unreasonable under the circumstances... As a general rule, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred."

Quote :

"State v. Hopper, 2010 WL 2650521 (N.C. Court of Appeals 2010): Traffic stops are permitted under the Fourth Amendment if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic law has been broken... Reasonable suspicion justifying a traffic stop requires that the stop be based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts, as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, cautious officer, guided by the officer's experience and training. (citing State v. Styles, 665 S.E.2d 438 (Supreme Court of NC 2008))"

I have a hard time seeing how more unwarranted and automated surveillance is a good thing.

And I sure as hell don't want North Carolina emulating New Jersey (the only state to have held that this kind of automated checking of license plates against a computerized database is not a Fourth Amendment violation) 

8/17/2010 8:53:14 PM

don't worry, there are probably hackers/crackers somewhere working a way to defeat this. Like a screen that covers the plate but isn't obvious, or some kinda shit like that.

8/18/2010 10:32:09 AM

Quote :

"I have a hard time seeing how more unwarranted and automated surveillance is a good thing."

8/18/2010 11:05:13 AM

Yeah, local police do not need more power than they currently have. If anything, they need to have some powers stripped.

All this is going to do is generate a lot more revenue by more quickly finding those who didnt renew their registration or get their car inspected in a more timely manner.

8/18/2010 12:20:48 PM

Similar to Topic:

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

Quote :

"Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers. When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show. Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer. But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. "They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno's conviction did so without comment. Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court's permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers. The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant. Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded." "The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent. "I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights. "If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that." But supporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court's approval. "You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS." He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property. "You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy." "

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1

8/27/2010 2:20:58 PM

imagine if they just attached a GPS to your car and then automatically sent you tickets in the mail when the unit reports back that you're speeding

8/27/2010 3:57:00 PM

It would definitely cut down on the number of speeders.

8/28/2010 11:49:21 AM

Imagine mounting a GPS on you so they know where you are when a crime is committed

8/28/2010 12:25:48 PM

^^

Why not just put governors on cars so that they can't go faster than 75mph?

If speeding was a safety issue, they would have done this years ago. It's about $$$ and nothing more. Fucking retarded to have a car that can go 120 but can't legally go this fast ANYWHERE. If you want to go racing on a legit racetrack, maybe give the racetrack a device that disables the governor.

75mph btw is the fastest speed limit I have seen (in Montana). 70 would be sufficient to cover 95% of US states.

I am not advocating this, simply proving again that speed limits are tax collection instruments and not safety guidelines. Fuck pigs.



[Edited on August 29, 2010 at 3:28 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2010 3:26:37 AM

Ahhhh, I love the old sinister speed limit plot.

The one that is easily foiled by driving just a little bit slower. Man, those ingenious bastards. Thought of everything except feeding slightly less gas into the accelerator.

The only problem with speed limit laws is their arbitrary enforcement. If they were consistently enforced, then you'd see *actual* driving speeds decrease, *actual* delta speed between cars level out, and *actual* reduction in accidents and fatalities. And I'd wager that transit time would not be significantly reduced over time.

What is really happening though, is people still drive really fast, still slam on breaks when they see cops, still speed back up and weave in and out of traffic. So of course the statistics don't work out, because people aren't actually generally obeying the law. Shit, it is more dangerous to drive the speed limit because a vast majority of people are going significantly faster.

Your suggestion about the governors prove nothing except you equivocate entirely fascist laws regarding controlling private property at the same level as laws that mandate behavior in a public setting.

Back on topic, the gps thing is fucked up. If you have a garage, you're protected by law. That is royally fucked up.

8/30/2010 9:41:07 AM

Raising the speed limit only increases crashes by like 1%, its the severity of the crash that significantly increases.

8/30/2010 10:03:06 AM

they should rename 1984 to Yes we can, change you can believe in.

8/30/2010 12:27:44 PM

Quote :

""You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy." "

wait so if you don't post a "no-trespassing" sign then the automatic assumption is the opposite?
people are free to roam all over your property?

I understand that anything that can be seen from the street is fair game for surveillance and you must build a fence if you want that type of privacy... but they are making a pretty big leap to say that trespassing is legal as long as there is no sign.

8/30/2010 12:36:39 PM

Quote :

"Raising the speed limit only increases crashes by like 1%, its the severity of the crash that significantly increases."

And if the state and federal governments cared about safety at all then they'd require a more stringent yearly inspection than what is currently mandated. I see so many clapped out shitboxes driving around with smashed windshields, bumpers held on with rope, nonfunctional brake lights and bald tires that it makes my head spin.

But don't speed, that's dangerous


(BTW I drive legally over 100mph a few times a year. Unfortunately its rather expensive).

8/30/2010 12:46:05 PM

Again, it's lax enforcement that's the problem. The laws themselves are not a bad idea.

8/30/2010 1:47:35 PM

^if safety is the primary MO, why not make vehicle inspections more mandatory and stringent? That would be a far more effective way at keeping the roads safer.

[Edited on August 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM. Reason : k]

8/30/2010 1:55:46 PM

Would that also not have the side effect of generating more money? If the MO was generating money, wouldn't they already do this? This is why I find the logic behind "speed limits laws are for making money" flawed.

8/30/2010 3:31:08 PM

^umm, yearly vehicle inspections are done by 3rd party businesses that aren't state owned.

8/30/2010 4:12:15 PM

A portion goes back to the state.

8/30/2010 4:26:04 PM

Not license plate but San Fran bans face recognition

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/san-francisco-ban-facial-recognition-technology_n_5cdb45cfe4b0c39d2a12f725

5/14/2019 11:28:50 PM