License plate cameras track millions of Americans

[DGuller]

Pretty much.

That's why people like BB should be kept on a very short leash.

It's just a completely different mentality, and one that I just can't understand.  Laws don't exist for their own sake, they exist within a context.  When technology changes the context, falling back on existing laws as a last word is being willfully obtuse.

[Neil]

So I shouldn't be allowed to film a public square?

Is that what we're talking about here?  It seems to me that the problem isn't filming things, but rather filming things, taking identifiable data out of the images and using that data so as to put together a log of every citizen's movements, in the hopes of sending them to prison.

[Razgovory]

Good Lord, next the DMV is going to keep a list of active license plates!

[Razgovory]

This is again one of those issues where technology erodes the spirit of the law without necessarily breaking the letter of the law.  What if police develop cameras that can record absolutely everything that happens on the streets?  Is it ok, because you don't have expectation of privacy outside of your home?

Could you tell me the spirit that is being eroded here?  I wasn't aware a license plate was ever intended to be private.

[Maximus]

This is again one of those issues where technology erodes the spirit of the law without necessarily breaking the letter of the law.  What if police develop cameras that can record absolutely everything that happens on the streets?  Is it ok, because you don't have expectation of privacy outside of your home?

Could you tell me the spirit that is being eroded here?  I wasn't aware a license plate was ever intended to be private.

Talk about missing the point.

[DGuller]

This is again one of those issues where technology erodes the spirit of the law without necessarily breaking the letter of the law.  What if police develop cameras that can record absolutely everything that happens on the streets?  Is it ok, because you don't have expectation of privacy outside of your home?

Could you tell me the spirit that is being eroded here?  I wasn't aware a license plate was ever intended to be private.

The point of a license plate is to have ways of identifying a driver if there is a specific need to identify him.  The point of it is not to be able to track every driver's whereabouts at all times.  Back when license plates where first invented, that wasn't a consideration, since it was impossible to track the cars in such an automated fashion. 

[Barrister]

This is again one of those issues where technology erodes the spirit of the law without necessarily breaking the letter of the law.  What if police develop cameras that can record absolutely everything that happens on the streets?  Is it ok, because you don't have expectation of privacy outside of your home?

Could you tell me the spirit that is being eroded here?  I wasn't aware a license plate was ever intended to be private.

Talk about missing the point.

Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.

Technology nows allows the police to do all the same things they were always allowed to do, but now they can do so more efficiently.  Please tell me what the inherent problem is with that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yes, in theory in 1950 teams of police officers could stand at every street corner and take notes on the comings and goings of everyone. At the end of the day they could haul all their notes to a centralized place where thousands of analysts would categorize and organize the notes and create a catalog or index for searching them later. Searches would take a long time, as would these analysis and categorization processes. Further, it would bankrupt whatever government was trying to do it because it would involve massive amounts of manpower even for small towns.

But at no point would anyone's right to privacy be violated. All that is changing now is we have a system that can automatically record any license plate it sees, and if you have enough cameras you could conceivably chart that license plate's path through a town over a period of days. You could create a database and a search system that would pull up inferred travel paths of the vehicle over time. But this is all based on information that was obtained in public, the same sort of information traditional police officers have been able to collect with traditional stakeouts/surveillance that do not require warrants. They are not intercepting private communications or papers, things that do require warrants. They are just watching someone's movements.

It seems like you guys are up in arms because technology has made it so the police can do their jobs much better, faster, with lower manpower--to such a degree that it's actually creating new ways of doing their job that were technologically impossible in the past. But that's no different than DNA testing and fingerprints--do you guys oppose those as well?

[Admiral Yi]

Back when i was living in DC I used to regularly rent a car and drive up to NYC.

So one time I'm driving Jersey and a cop pulls me over, tells me he ran the plates and it didn't show up in the system (too new??) and wanted to check it out.  I showed him the rental papers and everything was hunky dory.

Was that an invasion of my privacy?  I wasn't doing anything that warranted a search.

[Maximus]

Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.

Laws don't exist for their own sake, they exist within a context.  When technology changes the context, falling back on existing laws as a last word is being willfully obtuse.

Technology nows allows the police to do all the same things they were always allowed to do, but now they can do so more efficiently.  Please tell me what the inherent problem is with that.

The idea that there is no expectation of privacy in public was fine when it was not feasible to track every action of every person all the time. Now that it has become feasible that idea needs to be revisited.

[fhdz]

Back when i was living in DC I used to regularly rent a car and drive up to NYC.

So one time I'm driving Jersey and a cop pulls me over, tells me he ran the plates and it didn't show up in the system (too new??) and wanted to check it out.  I showed him the rental papers and everything was hunky dory.

Was that an invasion of my privacy?  I wasn't doing anything that warranted a search.

It depends. Had you and your attorney gone on an ether binge during the ride?

[garbon]

Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.

Laws don't exist for their own sake, they exist within a context.  When technology changes the context, falling back on existing laws as a last word is being willfully obtuse.

Technology nows allows the police to do all the same things they were always allowed to do, but now they can do so more efficiently.  Please tell me what the inherent problem is with that.

The idea that there is no expectation of privacy in public was fine when it was not feasible to track every action of every person all the time. Now that it has become feasible that idea needs to be revisited.

But Otto already outlined how it could have theoretically been possible to track most people. We just didn't because it was a waste of time/resources.

[Admiral Yi]

It depends. Had you and your attorney gone on an ether binge during the ride?

That was later.  No ether in the car, that's a hard and fast rule.

[fhdz]

Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.

Laws don't exist for their own sake, they exist within a context.  When technology changes the context, falling back on existing laws as a last word is being willfully obtuse.

Technology nows allows the police to do all the same things they were always allowed to do, but now they can do so more efficiently.  Please tell me what the inherent problem is with that.

The idea that there is no expectation of privacy in public was fine when it was not feasible to track every action of every person all the time. Now that it has become feasible that idea needs to be revisited.

But Otto already outlined how it could have theoretically been possible to track most people. We just didn't because it was a waste of time/resources.

The point he's making is that now that it isn't a waste of time and resources, is it something we as a society want to have done to us?

[DGuller]

But Otto already outlined how it could have theoretically been possible to track most people. We just didn't because it was a waste of time/resources.

Why exactly would you divorce practicality from legality?  The laws were the way they were because of what was practical at the time.  Laws don't get created to protect people against threats that are too impractical be bothered about.  Now that more things are practical, the laws as they are may no longer be enough.  There weren't any wiretapping laws in 1700 either.