License plate cameras track millions of Americans

[Admiral Yi]

Think it is not.  Nonsuspicious? No, that gets red squigglied too.

[Zanza]

It seems to be an English word, but it doesn't seem to mean what I thought...

unsuspicious
Definition thesaurus.com:   gullible, naive
Definition merriam-webster: lacking in worldly wisdom or informed judgment

[The Brain]

Caucasian-operated?

[Sheilbh]

I seem to have a very different concept of privacy than a lot of posters here. My default position is that everything I do is private, unless there is some overriding public interest. It doesn't matter if it is me alone in my own dark cellar room or me hanging out with friends in the busiest square in town.

Yeah. My view is you've can expect privacy if you're in a private place. If you're in a public place, using public communications - like the internet, or public utilities - like the roads - then you're more or less fair game. That goes for me online being tracked by the NSA, for someone walking down the street on CCTV, or for a celebrity snapped taking his mistress out for dinner.

Nothing I do is private unless I do it in a private place, or take steps to make it private.

[mongers]

I seem to have a very different concept of privacy than a lot of posters here. My default position is that everything I do is private, unless there is some overriding public interest. It doesn't matter if it is me alone in my own dark cellar room or me hanging out with friends in the busiest square in town.

Yeah. My view is you've can expect privacy if you're in a private place. If you're in a public place, using public communications - like the internet, or public utilities - like the roads - then you're more or less fair game. That goes for me online being tracked by the NSA, for someone walking down the street on CCTV, or for a celebrity snapped taking his mistress out for dinner.

Nothing I do is private unless I do it in a private place, or take steps to make it private.

So it's safe to assume you're not planning on becoming a civil liberties lawyer, working for a big corporation perhaps ?   

[mongers]

A item on how this surveillance culture is affecting police operations here:

Police number plate camera scheme broke law in Royston
By Tom Espiner

A police force must stop using number plate recognition technology after a warning from the UK's data watchdog.

The Information Commissioner's Office said Hertfordshire Constabulary's use of cameras in and around the town of Royston was in breach of the law.

It said the force had failed to carry out required privacy impact checks.

The ICO's ruling may have wider significance for the gathering of number plate data in the UK.

"It is difficult to see why a small, rural town such as Royston requires cameras monitoring all traffic in and out of the town 24 hours a day," said Stephen Eckersley, the ICO's head of enforcement.

"The use of ANPR [automatic number plate recognition] cameras and other forms of surveillance must be proportionate to the problem it is trying to address.

"After detailed inquiries, including consideration of the information Hertfordshire Constabulary provided, we found that this simply wasn't the case in Royston."

The ICO added that the use of seven cameras had made it impossible for motorists to drive into the town without a record being kept of their journey. It noted the scheme had become known locally as "the ring of steel".

The police force has now been told it must take the equipment down unless it can justify its use.

Hertfordshire Constabulary said it would not appeal the ruling.
......

Full item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23433138

[DGuller]

Ouch.  You know your country really fell for Big Brother when UK looks like a privacy watch dog by comparison.  But, hey, the roads are a public places, so stay home if you don't want to be randomly strip-searched.

[garbon]

But, hey, the roads are a public places, so stay home if you don't want to be randomly strip-searched.

[Barrister]

Ouch.  You know your country really fell for Big Brother when UK looks like a privacy watch dog by comparison.  But, hey, the roads are a public places, so stay home if you don't want to be randomly strip-searched.

Uh, no.

You have no expectation of privacy about things that are publicly displayed.  You have no expectation of privacy in what you wear when you go outside, because everybody can see that.  You have no expectation of privacy of your license plate because it is publicly displayed.

You do have an expectation of privacy for what is not publically displayed.  You do have an expectation of privacy for what kind of underwear you wear, or what is hidden inside your car trunk.

[Zanza]

Uh, no.

You have no expectation of privacy about things that are publicly displayed.  You have no expectation of privacy in what you wear when you go outside, because everybody can see that.  You have no expectation of privacy of your license plate because it is publicly displayed.

You do have an expectation of privacy for what is not publically displayed.  You do have an expectation of privacy for what kind of underwear you wear, or what is hidden inside your car trunk.

The question is what means of observation are allowed, not what can be observed. What you state is merely a trivial fact, the real question is whether the police, other government agencies or private actors may use any technical means available to observe the public and store, process and link the data derived from those technical means. Maybe it is allowed under current legislation, but the question is whether we as a society want that or whether we want to outlaw it.
The technical abilities have increased massively in the last few years, so this is a new question as the wholesale surveillance that modern technology allows was simply not possible in the past short of a total police state such as East Germany.

[garbon]

Uh, no.

You have no expectation of privacy about things that are publicly displayed.  You have no expectation of privacy in what you wear when you go outside, because everybody can see that.  You have no expectation of privacy of your license plate because it is publicly displayed.

You do have an expectation of privacy for what is not publically displayed.  You do have an expectation of privacy for what kind of underwear you wear, or what is hidden inside your car trunk.

The question is what means of observation are allowed, not what can be observed. What you state is merely a trivial fact, the real question is whether the police, other government agencies or private actors may use any technical means available to observe the public and store, process and link the data derived from those technical means. Maybe it is allowed under current legislation, but the question is whether we as a society want that or whether we want to outlaw it.
The technical abilities have increased massively in the last few years, so this is a new question as the wholesale surveillance that modern technology allows was simply not possible in the past short of a total police state such as East Germany.

But as was mentioned earlier, that seems to come down to, we let you have those powers as long as you can't do them efficiently. As soon as you do so efficiently, we don't like it.

[DGuller]

But as was mentioned earlier, that seems to come down to, we let you have those powers as long as you can't do them efficiently. As soon as you do so efficiently, we don't like it.

Didn't I address that before?  What exactly is so controversial about balancing police's effective power with privacy?  I'm not at all seeing a devastating argument here that you think you are leveling.

[Zanza]

But as was mentioned earlier, that seems to come down to, we let you have those powers as long as you can't do them efficiently. As soon as you do so efficiently, we don't like it.

Of course. Outlawing something that isn't possible with the available and known means makes little sense. So obviously it only becomes a question when the circumstances change. Almost every adult American has a photo ID issued by the DMV, software is now able to identify faces very well, so it is possible to identify everybody's whereabouts with enough cameras in the public. Is that something the drafters of the Bill of Rights could possibly have imagined? Obviously not, so the question needs to be answered by the politicians and society of this generation. Do we want these kinds of technical surveillance mechanisms be legal or not?

[Maximus]

But as was mentioned earlier, that seems to come down to, we let you have those powers as long as you can't do them efficiently. As soon as you do so efficiently, we don't like it.

That's one way to spin it. Another would be: you can have those powers because the potential for abuse is low, but if that changes we will have to re-examine it.

[Barrister]

But as was mentioned earlier, that seems to come down to, we let you have those powers as long as you can't do them efficiently. As soon as you do so efficiently, we don't like it.

That's one way to spin it. Another would be: you can have those powers because the potential for abuse is low, but if that changes we will have to re-examine it.

But the potential for abuse is unchanged depending on how efficient something is.

You accidentally though focus in on what I think the argument should be - how do we minimize or eliminate the potential for abuse.  Collecting a great big database of license plates can be tremendously helpful for very legitimate police investigations.  But it creates a greater potential for that information to be misused.  Say, a police officer who accesses that databank to stalk his ex-wife.

Rather than not allow the information to be gathered at all, instead lets focus on putting in place effective institutional policies to ensure it can't be misused.