Probably not a surprise these days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/license-plate-cameras-track-millions-of-americans/2013/07/17/40410cd0-ee47-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html
QuoteLicense plate cameras track millions of Americans
The spread of cheap, powerful cameras capable of reading license plates has allowed police to build databases on the movements of millions of Americans over months or even years, according to an American Civil Liberties Union report released Wednesday.
The license-plate readers, which police typically mount along major roadways or on the backs of cruisers, can identify vehicles almost instantly and compare them against "hot lists" of cars that have been stolen or involved in crimes.
But the systems collect records on every license plate they encounter — whether or not they are on hot lists — meaning time and location data are gathered in databases that can be searched by police. Some departments purge information after a few weeks, some after a few months and some never, said the report, which warns that such data could be abused by authorities, and chill freedom of speech and association.
"Using them to develop vast troves of information on where Americans travel is not an appropriate use," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney at the ACLU and one of the authors of the report, "You are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record Americans' Movements."
The use of license-plate readers is common in the Washington area, where concerns about terrorism have fueled major investments in the equipment, with much of the money coming from federal grants. Agreements among departments and jurisdictions allow sharing of the location information, with data typically retained for at least a year.
(Story: License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns)
Such details, say police and law enforcement experts, can help investigators reconstruct suspects' movements before and after armed robberies, auto thefts and other crimes. Departments typically require that information be used only for law enforcement purposes and require audits designed to detect abuse.
"We'd like to be able to keep the data as long as possible, because it does provide a rich and enduring data set for investigations down the line," said David J. Roberts, senior program manager for the Technology Center of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
But the ACLU argues that data collection by most police departments is unnecessarily broad. In an analysis of data collected in Maryland, the report found that license-plate readers recorded the locations of vehicle plates 85 million times in 2012.
Based on a partial-year analysis of that data, the ACLU found that about one in 500 plates registered hits. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it said, the alleged offenses were minor, involving lapsed registrations or failures to comply with the state's emission-control program.
For each million plates read in Maryland, 47 were associated with serious crimes, such as a stolen vehicle or a wanted person, the report said. Statistics collected by the ACLU in several other jurisdictions around the country also found hit rates far below 1 percent of license plates read.
Maryland officials have defended their program, which collects data from departments across the state in a fusion center, which shares intelligence among federal, state and local agencies. In a recent three-month period, state officials said, license-plate readers contributed to 860 serious traffic citations and the apprehension of 180 people for crimes including stolen autos or license plates.
The center deletes the data one year after they are collected, in what officials said was a compromise between investigative needs and privacy rights.
"We don't want to retain more information . . . than is necessary," said Harvey Eisenberg, an assistant U.S. attorney who oversees Maryland's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council. "You strike the balance, because people are legitimately concerned."
The license-plate readers are also widely used in Northern Virginia and the District, which has them mounted on many of the major roadways entering and exiting the city. A D.C. police spokeswoman did not immediately comment on the ACLU report.
Private companies also are using license-plate-reading technology to build databases, typically to help in repossessing cars.
http://www.aclu.org/alpr
(https://d320ze5h7gg57a.cloudfront.net/files/images/natsec/web13-featurepage-alpr-map-v03_0.png)
We've been doing it in Maryland since before 2006, that I'm aware of.
No duh.
Quote(Story: License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns)
No, actually it doesn't. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in displayed license plates, which are the property of the state anyway.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the ACLU is going on about. Licence plates are a) public and b) not the property of the driver.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 12:34:37 PM
Quote(Story: License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns)
No, actually it doesn't. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in displayed license plates, which are the property of the state anyway.
Indeed. That's kind of the point of license plates - to identify your vehicle to any and all observers.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 12:40:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 12:34:37 PM
Quote(Story: License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns)
No, actually it doesn't. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in displayed license plates, which are the property of the state anyway.
Indeed. That's kind of the point of license plates - to identify your vehicle to any and all observers.
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?
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 12:40:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 12:34:37 PM
Quote(Story: License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns)
No, actually it doesn't. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in displayed license plates, which are the property of the state anyway.
Indeed. That's kind of the point of license plates - to identify your vehicle to any and all observers.
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?
Pretty much.
I'm reminded of a study some years ago where scientists determined that many people are generally OK with being filmed in public, for example by surveillance cameras, or if they happen to be in the shot of someone who photographs a landmark. When you film/photograph them specifically, though, they get uncomfortable or aggressive.
The privacy concerns in this area isn't that police should or should not be able to gather this type of information. Of course they can and should.
It's that there need to be reasonable controls over how that information can be used.
How exactly is it that something that happens in the public square is protected by privacy laws? I'd be all for video cameras on every street light, traffic light and every street sign at every street corner if not for the overwhelming amount of overspending that would represent. I certainly support them in heavily urbanized areas though, they are a great tool for law enforcement and erode no extant liberties whatsoever. The government being able to exercise always-present powers better than before is not us losing our rights, it is our government effecting its powers more efficiently.
So I shouldn't be allowed to film a public square?
Quote from: mongers on July 17, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 02:07:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 01:00:43 PM
Pretty much.
:wacko:
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 05:06:58 PM
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.
Good Lord, next the DMV is going to keep a list of active license plates!
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on July 17, 2013, 05:35:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 05:13:13 PMLaws 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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 06:05:46 PM
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?
Quote from: Maximus on July 17, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 05:13:13 PMLaws 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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
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.
Quote from: fhdz on July 17, 2013, 06:08:15 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 06:11:57 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 17, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
Then why don't you tell me what the point is, since I clearly don't get it either.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 05:13:13 PMLaws 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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 05:49:36 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2013, 06:11:57 PM
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.
I think we'd have to establish that abuses are happening before I think it'd make sense to revise. Besides, I think it would have been totally practical if a small town had had a police office sit on main street and write down license plates parked and as cars passed.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
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.
I think you are wrong. A license plate was put on a car for identification, period. Not just a specific identification request. After all, the goverment kept the plates on file for, whatever contingency. They didn't burn the files after wrighting them down. Simply because technology has allowed for easy photographs of licenses plates does not change the nature of the license plate.
Quote from: Maximus on July 17, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
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.
The idea that police should be given investigative power, but only if they suck at using them is absurd. The legal powers of police shouldn't wax and wane based on their capabilities.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
I think you are wrong. A license plate was put on a car for identification, period. Not just a specific identification request.
The practical reality back then was that license plate would only be looked up if there was a need to look it up. Back then it couldn't be fathomed that a license plate could double as a GPS tracker, partly because the concept of GPS trackers or GPS itself couldn't be fathomed either. That's the thing about technology, it can't really be fathomed ahead of time.
That's why relying on laws as the last word on what should and should not be done is not only stupid, but aggressively stupid. What we want the laws to accomplish doesn't change quickly, but what the laws allow to be accomplished can change very quickly due to technological developments. That's why the letter of the law has to be periodically tweaked to keep up with the spirit of the law.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 17, 2013, 06:06:53 PM
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.
The idea that police should be given investigative power, but only if they suck at using them is absurd. The legal powers of police shouldn't wax and wane based on their capabilities.
What's absurd is ignoring the existence of a trade-off between privacy and the ability of police to investigate effectively.
Who knew EZPASS was so evil?
MAH FREEDOMS :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 06:39:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
I think you are wrong. A license plate was put on a car for identification, period. Not just a specific identification request.
The practical reality back then was that license plate would only be looked up if there was a need to look it up. Back then it couldn't be fathomed that a license plate could double as a GPS tracker, partly because the concept of GPS trackers or GPS itself couldn't be fathomed either. That's the thing about technology, it can't really be fathomed ahead of time.
That's why relying on laws as the last word on what should and should not be done is not only stupid, but aggressively stupid. What we want the laws to accomplish doesn't change quickly, but what the laws allow to be accomplished can change very quickly due to technological developments. That's why the letter of the law has to be periodically tweaked to keep up with the spirit of the law.
Are the License plates doubling as GPS trackers? It was my understanding that the license plate is unchanged, and only the act of observation has changed.
Guller, would you be OK with a system that only checked for infractions of vehicle regs, such as expired registration, stolen car, etc., unpaid tickets, and which did not maintain a database of your visits to Madame Chow's House of Magic Lotus Table Shampoo?
You make a decent general point about laws not existing in a vacuum, but it's an obvious one and not directly relevant. The original wording of the constitution and early jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment is that we would be secure in our "papers." So does that mean the government can tap our phone lines whenever it wants? Our voice going over copper wire is not the same thing as our papers. What about computer files on their home computer? Those are not papers under any common 18th century understanding of the word.
But our courts are not stupid, very early on they correctly interpreted where the Fourth Amendment protections start and end with new technology. So you have always needed a warrant to actually listen in on phone conversations. When it comes to requiring warrants to read emails and such, the law has been slow to evolve but signs are it is getting there.
However, what we're talking about here is like saying, in early American terms, that the color of your horse and wagon is privileged information that the constabulary cannot record for their purposes. That isn't just unsupported by the plain text of the Fourth Amendment it is plainly unsupported by any logical extension involving technology that I can think of that derives from the Fourth. There is no expectation of privacy in terms of the movements of your licensed car, and generally speaking police have always been able to tail suspicious persons and that's something that they have done since as early as cars existed. You do not need a warrant to follow someone, you only need a warrant if you breach areas in which they have an expectation of privacy.
There was a recent case on attaching GPS devices to a vehicle violating the Fourth Amendment. I felt the decision was not well written, but I agreed with the thrust--placing a surreptitious GPS tracking device on someone's car should be considered a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. However, that is materially different than passively recording what happens in the public square. No device is being put on the cars, and nothing is being done any different than ordinary police ability to monitor and record things that happen in public.
This is materially different from changing technology like telephones and emails which obviously were an expansion of where we should expect privacy--because this just involves the police getting better at tracking things for which there has never been any legal expectation of privacy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 07:00:21 PM
Guller, would you be OK with a system that only checked for infractions of vehicle regs, such as expired registration, stolen car, etc., unpaid tickets, and which did not maintain a database of your visits to Madame Chow's House of Magic Lotus Table Shampoo?
Do they have a buffet there?
It's also no different than what private business owners have long been able to do--record what happens inside and outside their businesses. People recorded on those devices are not shielded by privacy law, the owner of the building can demand a warrant to get his video tapes or video files, but the people on the file have no such protection because they do not have an expectation of privacy from being video taped inside say, the checkout line at a convenience store.
Likewise any private citizen can point a camera out their front window and record goings on in the public square 24/7, and can make those videotapes freely available to the police. The citizens being videotaped have no privacy assertion they could make to stop the private citizen from giving those tapes to the police or the government using those tapes in prosecutions. In general there is no understood prohibition on the government doing the exact same thing any private business or citizen could do. The government is using public property to erect its cameras, but that is in fact because the government has the right to do things like that in public that dates back to the foundation of government and the concept of public structures and places.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 12:34:37 PM
Quote(Story: License plate readers: A useful tool for police comes with privacy concerns)
No, actually it doesn't. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in displayed license plates, which are the property of the state anyway.
:yes:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:59:23 PM
Are the License plates doubling as GPS trackers? It was my understanding that the license plate is unchanged, and only the act of observation has changed.
It's a distinction without a practical difference. Sounds waves also always existed as well, it's just that an act of recording them has changed over time.
Ah, Jersey. Of course, our local yokels took it above and beyond- they've actually got a couple of "traffic enforcement" vehicles with plate readers mounted front and back.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 07:38:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:59:23 PM
Are the License plates doubling as GPS trackers? It was my understanding that the license plate is unchanged, and only the act of observation has changed.
It's a distinction without a practical difference. Sounds waves also always existed as well, it's just that an act of recording them has changed over time.
Someone observing a license plate and someone putting tracking equipment seem like a major distinction. As for your sound waves analogy, it is illegal for the police to put listening device in your house, but it's not for listen to thing you say to them and remember those things even if they are in your house. It's also not illegal for the police to record an interrogation at the police station.
You complain about the laws not changing, but it seems what you are really complaining about is the principles and ideas behind those laws not changing. The ability for police to photograph license plates runs fairly naturally from the principles of expectations of privacy.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 12:58:15 PMWhat 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?
Yep. And the internet's a public space too.
I've no issue with this.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2013, 06:15:29 PM
That was later. No ether in the car, that's a hard and fast rule.
Listen up people, this is a damn good rule.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2013, 05:59:04 PM
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?
I only oppose it on the grounds that the police aren't qualified to work with such technology better, faster, with lower manpower. We are talking law enforcement here, you know.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 06:39:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
I think you are wrong. A license plate was put on a car for identification, period. Not just a specific identification request.
The practical reality back then was that license plate would only be looked up if there was a need to look it up.
You are mistaken. Cops have always "ran your plates" for no particular reason (like what happened in Yi's case). They see a vehicle, they run the plate, they pull you over if something is wrong (plate doesn't match vehicle, plate is stolen, owner of plate has warrants, etc).
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 06:39:47 PM
The practical reality back then was that license plate would only be looked up if there was a need to look it up.
You are mistaken. Cops have always "ran your plates" for no particular reason (like what happened in Yi's case). They see a vehicle, they run the plate, they pull you over if something is wrong (plate doesn't match vehicle, plate is stolen, owner of plate has warrants, etc).
Yup. The "need to look it up" was because I wanted to look it up.
It was a little more difficult back in the day before mobile data terminals, though; we had to have a decent reason to get a tag run, not for any real legal reason but only because we had to call it in over the radio and there was enough traffic on the channel as it was without everybody requesting plates all the time. Then the dispatcher would get pissy because you're making them "do stuff", and they'd call your sergeant to bitch and he'd roll up on you and tell you to knock the shit off, who are you, fucking Batman or something?
And when you wanted to annoy the dispatcher back for being such a lazy fucker and crying about it, you'd request a plate check for a vehicle on fire, which just so happened to belong to them. And then you'd have another, much livelier conversation with the sergeant.
Some people just have no sense of humor.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
You are mistaken. Cops have always "ran your plates" for no particular reason (like what happened in Yi's case). They see a vehicle, they run the plate, they pull you over if something is wrong (plate doesn't match vehicle, plate is stolen, owner of plate has warrants, etc).
As I understand it, the cliff's notes version is that the car's the owner's, but the plates are the state's, so the state doesn't have to ask if it's okay to check a plate that it issued to a driver.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 17, 2013, 10:44:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
You are mistaken. Cops have always "ran your plates" for no particular reason (like what happened in Yi's case). They see a vehicle, they run the plate, they pull you over if something is wrong (plate doesn't match vehicle, plate is stolen, owner of plate has warrants, etc).
As I understand it, the cliff's notes version is that the car's the owner's, but the plates are the state's, so the state doesn't have to ask if it's okay to check a plate that it issued to a driver.
Not in Canada. When I have a stolen plate charge the "owner" of the plate is the person who owns the vehicle, not the province.
Instead it comes down to "driving on public highways is a highly regulated activity with severely diminished expectations of privacy".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 10:35:34 PM
Then the dispatcher would get pissy because you're making them "do stuff", and they'd call your sergeant to bitch and he'd roll up on you and tell you to knock the shit off, who are you, fucking Batman or something?
hehe, yea.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 17, 2013, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 06:39:47 PM
The practical reality back then was that license plate would only be looked up if there was a need to look it up.
You are mistaken. Cops have always "ran your plates" for no particular reason (like what happened in Yi's case). They see a vehicle, they run the plate, they pull you over if something is wrong (plate doesn't match vehicle, plate is stolen, owner of plate has warrants, etc).
Yup. The "need to look it up" was because I wanted to look it up.
It was a little more difficult back in the day before mobile data terminals, though; we had to have a decent reason to get a tag run, not for any real legal reason but only because we had to call it in over the radio and there was enough traffic on the channel as it was without everybody requesting plates all the time. Then the dispatcher would get pissy because you're making them "do stuff", and they'd call your sergeant to bitch and he'd roll up on you and tell you to knock the shit off, who are you, fucking Batman or something?
And when you wanted to annoy the dispatcher back for being such a lazy fucker and crying about it, you'd request a plate check for a vehicle on fire, which just so happened to belong to them. And then you'd have another, much livelier conversation with the sergeant.
Some people just have no sense of humor.
Maybe I would have fit in that profession better then I thought.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:46:20 PM
Not in Canada. When I have a stolen plate charge the "owner" of the plate is the person who owns the vehicle, not the province.
Instead it comes down to "driving on public highways is a highly regulated activity with severely diminished expectations of privacy".
Also, a rationale in the decisions I read. Basically, the claimants got read the riot act with a litany of reasons why randomly running plates doesn't constitute a fourth amendment violation.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 11:14:32 PM
Maybe I would have fit in that profession better then I thought.
Nah, you would've gotten very frustrated very quickly. It's kinda like working with Languish, but instead of putting you on "ignore", they'd just put your Signal 13 button response on "ignore" instead. Not fun.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2013, 06:39:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
I think you are wrong. A license plate was put on a car for identification, period. Not just a specific identification request.
The practical reality back then was that license plate would only be looked up if there was a need to look it up.
You are mistaken. Cops have always "ran your plates" for no particular reason (like what happened in Yi's case). They see a vehicle, they run the plate, they pull you over if something is wrong (plate doesn't match vehicle, plate is stolen, owner of plate has warrants, etc).
No, I'm not mistaken, I knew that. However, the practical reality was that you can't map anyone's movements with that (with the person who you want mapped chosen after the fact, no less), unless you actually tail someone.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:46:20 PM
Instead it comes down to "driving on public highways is a highly regulated activity with severely diminished expectations of privacy".
And that's another thing that needs to be revisited. Driving may have been a privilege when cars first came out, which gave a fig leaf to excuse law enforcement actions that wouldn't be tolerated on a sidewalk, but nowadays it's really a necessity for most people if the want to earn a living. Our constitutional protections are not worth anything if they're not applicable during activities that are practically necessary.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2013, 09:48:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2013, 10:46:20 PM
Instead it comes down to "driving on public highways is a highly regulated activity with severely diminished expectations of privacy".
And that's another thing that needs to be revisited. Driving may have been a privilege when cars first came out, which gave a fig leaf to excuse law enforcement actions that wouldn't be tolerated on a sidewalk, but nowadays it's really a necessity for most people if the want to earn a living. Our constitutional protections are not worth anything if they're not applicable during activities that are practically necessary.
My bar admission is also a necessity for me to make a living, but it comes with all kinds of very invasive regulations as well.
Well, now there are ideas to put tracking on cars to record mileage for collecting road use taxes. Since as cars have become more efficient, we're using a lot less gas so gas taxes may not keep up.
Quote from: KRonn on July 18, 2013, 10:17:48 AM
Well, now there are ideas to put tracking on cars to record mileage for collecting road use taxes. Since as cars have become more efficient, we're using a lot less gas so gas taxes may not keep up.
It makes a certain amount of sense. At one point I had two vehicles - my then new truck, and my older car. I liked using my car for work because it was so much cheaper on gas. But despite the fact I wasn't driving any more than I was before, I now had to pay double for vehicle registration and insurance.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 18, 2013, 10:17:48 AM
Well, now there are ideas to put tracking on cars to record mileage for collecting road use taxes. Since as cars have become more efficient, we're using a lot less gas so gas taxes may not keep up.
It makes a certain amount of sense. At one point I had two vehicles - my then new truck, and my older car. I liked using my car for work because it was so much cheaper on gas. But despite the fact I wasn't driving any more than I was before, I now had to pay double for vehicle registration and insurance.
I know, it does make some sense. Also, figure the person who pays more for a hybrid car, only to find that they're going to be taxed the same as a gas user anyway. Or I assume it'd work that way since they're on the roads same as a gas auto.
As for hybrid cars, it would seem they'll become less desirable/useful as cars get so much better gas mileage now and in the near future. Even small SUVs now get into the 30s mpg highway, and many types of cars get well into the 30s and into the 40s.
Quote from: KRonn on July 18, 2013, 10:31:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: KRonn on July 18, 2013, 10:17:48 AM
Well, now there are ideas to put tracking on cars to record mileage for collecting road use taxes. Since as cars have become more efficient, we're using a lot less gas so gas taxes may not keep up.
It makes a certain amount of sense. At one point I had two vehicles - my then new truck, and my older car. I liked using my car for work because it was so much cheaper on gas. But despite the fact I wasn't driving any more than I was before, I now had to pay double for vehicle registration and insurance.
I know, it does make some sense. Also, figure the person who pays more for a hybrid car, only to find that they're going to be taxed the same as a gas user anyway. Or I assume it'd work that way since they're on the roads same as a gas auto.
As for hybrid cars, it would seem they'll become less desirable/useful as cars get so much better gas mileage now and in the near future. Even small SUVs now get into the 30s mpg highway, and many types of cars get well into the 30s and into the 40s.
The gas taxes are for gas. The road use taxes are to maintain the roads, which the hybrid user uses every bit as much as the normal car user.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2013, 09:50:47 AM
My bar admission is also a necessity for me to make a living, but it comes with all kinds of very invasive regulations as well.
Very appropriate analogy.
DGuller, why don't you go home to Soviet Russia if you want a 1984-ish police state so much?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 18, 2013, 07:27:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2013, 11:14:32 PM
Maybe I would have fit in that profession better then I thought.
Nah, you would've gotten very frustrated very quickly. It's kinda like working with Languish, but instead of putting you on "ignore", they'd just put your Signal 13 button response on "ignore" instead. Not fun.
I was actually more concerned about standing around every other weekend watching them pull pieces of people out of wreckage, responding to domestic abuse calls where girlfriends, wives and children scream at you for dragging off their abuser, seeing decent people fuck themselves over on drugs that kind of thing. I saw some of this and came to the conclusion it would quickly grind you down. Maybe I just rode along on the wrong nights, but found the whole thing very depressing. Probably for the best, I was already losing it anyway.
Cops would have been a great show if they sometimes shot in rich neighborhoods. Watching Johnny Trustfund disgrace his Mayflowerian family is a lot more hilarious than watching some dirt poor drug dude get arrested the third time that week.
Quote from: The Brain on July 18, 2013, 04:34:52 PM
Cops would have been a great show if they sometimes shot in rich neighborhoods. Watching Johnny Trustfund disgrace his Mayflowerian family is a lot more hilarious than watching some dirt poor drug dude get arrested the third time that week.
Johnny Trustfund's family has way better access to lawyers, which would make it inconvenient and/or expensive to produce the show.
Quote from: Jacob on July 18, 2013, 04:40:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 18, 2013, 04:34:52 PM
Cops would have been a great show if they sometimes shot in rich neighborhoods. Watching Johnny Trustfund disgrace his Mayflowerian family is a lot more hilarious than watching some dirt poor drug dude get arrested the third time that week.
Johnny Trustfund's family has way better access to lawyers, which would make it inconvenient and/or expensive to produce the show.
I know there are many reasons they don't do it.
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend, doesn't buy or sell drugs on the street, and doesn't boost cars.
Your show would have two episodes every ten years when Khan splooges on a maid or Spitzer bangs an escort.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 04:48:44 PM
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend,
I see.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 04:48:44 PM
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend,
Disagree. Domestic violence cuts across all socioeconomic classes.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2013, 04:54:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 04:48:44 PM
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend,
Disagree. Domestic violence cuts across all socioeconomic classes.
Yup. The only difference is Johnny Trustfund gets released on his own recognizance when he's arrested, and Darkie McDredlocks gets a $10,000 bail.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 04:48:44 PM
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend
He drives her off a bridge.
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2013, 04:54:34 PM
Disagree. Domestic violence cuts across all socioeconomic classes.
Sure. Ask a copper buddy how often he gets a domestic dispute call at McMansion Estates vs. Trailer Town.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 04:48:44 PM
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend, doesn't buy or sell drugs on the street, and doesn't boost cars.
Your show would have two episodes every ten years when Khan splooges on a maid or Spitzer bangs an escort.
:lol: You really believe that don't you?
:face: I'm nutty enough to think most tips aren't pooled either.
Not only are the rich better off financially, they are morally superior.
:face:
You really should stop hitting yourself like that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 18, 2013, 04:48:44 PM
Johhny Trustfund doesn't beat up his girlfriend, doesn't buy or sell drugs on the street, and doesn't boost cars.
You're probably correct in general about boosting cars, but not so much on the other two.
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.
This applies to both other private observers and especially to the government. It's just no ones fucking business what I do all day long.
And tracking me in any way is neither appropriate nor should it be legal. Which I think - at least here - it isn't in most cases. A private person that would track me would probably be considered a stalker. The government tracking me - unless there is very good reason, e.g. I am a suspect in a serious crime - is not constitutional.
Stuff like just tracking everybody's communications via metadata storage or the whereabouts by storing license plates is something that I consider a violation of my privacy. It's not just if the data it used, it's already when it is created. Thankfully our courts see it the same way and have generally outlawed most of these schemes or made them very restrictive. Sadly our government tries nevertheless and isn't particularly interested in protecting our constitutional rights. Fuckers.
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 10:11:53 AM
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.
Well I'm heard that delusions can be quite comforting.
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 10:11:53 AM
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.
This applies to both other private observers and especially to the government. It's just no ones fucking business what I do all day long.
And tracking me in any way is neither appropriate nor should it be legal. Which I think - at least here - it isn't in most cases. A private person that would track me would probably be considered a stalker. The government tracking me - unless there is very good reason, e.g. I am a suspect in a serious crime - is not constitutional.
Stuff like just tracking everybody's communications via metadata storage or the whereabouts by storing license plates is something that I consider a violation of my privacy. It's not just if the data it used, it's already when it is created. Thankfully our courts see it the same way and have generally outlawed most of these schemes or made them very restrictive. Sadly our government tries nevertheless and isn't particularly interested in protecting our constitutional rights. Fuckers.
I would simply say your belief on privacy is both unreasonable and frankly stupid and idiotic. If the law in Germany really reflects precisely what you've spelled out here, likewise to German law (and knowing what I do about German law I'm comfortable in saying despite many shameful quirks in American law German law is ridiculously stupid on a great many issues. I'll never forget when a friend of mine was staying with us and ran afoul of some American red tape and told me it was the first time since he had been in the States he felt like he was in Germany. It reminded me of all the terrible restrictions on behavior codified in German law.)
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2013, 11:23:06 AM
QuoteMy default position is that everything I do is private, unless there is some overriding public interest.
Well I'm heard that delusions can be quite comforting.
Being in public obviously means that you can be observed by private and public actors, pretending that is not so would of course be delusional. That alone is not violating privacy. It becomes a violation of privacy if observation is done in a systematic, planned way, especially when it is recorded, aggregated into a profile and when you may not even be aware that you are observed.
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 11:52:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 20, 2013, 11:23:06 AM
QuoteMy default position is that everything I do is private, unless there is some overriding public interest.
Well I'm heard that delusions can be quite comforting.
Being in public obviously means that you can be observed by private and public actors, pretending that is not so would of course be delusional. That alone is not violating privacy. It becomes a violation of privacy if observation is done in a systematic, planned way, especially when it is recorded, aggregated into a profile and when you may not even be aware that you are observed.
I'm not sure I agree. Sure I think there might be a case if say I was in a hotel room and you, a paparazzo, used a telephoto lens to snap photos of me naked but if you were just tailing me in your car all day and entering that info into a database, not so much.
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 11:52:42 AM
Being in public obviously means that you can be observed by private and public actors, pretending that is not so would of course be delusional. That alone is not violating privacy. It becomes a violation of privacy if observation is done in a systematic, planned way, especially when it is recorded, aggregated into a profile and when you may not even be aware that you are observed.
Such as the German requirement to register your current residence with the authorities?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2013, 02:10:20 PM
Such as the German requirement to register your current residence with the authorities?
Not the best example as it just creates one data point when you move and not a constant surveillance profile, but yes, that's an example of data that should not be collected and certainly not used in the way it is.
When it comes to registration, I think the American way with a regular census to get the necessary anonymous statistical data and an opt-in for voter registration by the citizens is superior to how we do it.
The German registration data is actually not kept in a central database, but rather each municipality (about 5000) only keeps the data on its own inhabitants, and supposedly just reports aggregated data to higher authorities. That's why our recent census found that we have 1.5 million people less than previously thought. From anecdotal evidence I know plenty of people that never register their residence when they move (they often still have their residence registered with their parents or so) and it doesn't really seem to make a difference.
I am not sure if our administrative structure would allow not to have that data, it would certainly be preferable. As far as I know, even the US has some obligatory registrations like Selective Service for young males.
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 03:51:04 PM
When does tailing you all day long in your car become criminal stalking? There seems to be at least a minimum standard of privacy that is also enforced by law.
I proposed an acceptable limit earlier in the thread. Coppers can keep a camera on your license plate at all times, checking to see if the car is stolen or you haven't paid your registration or anything car-related 24/7. They can't use the information to track your daily movements.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2013, 03:57:50 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 03:51:04 PM
When does tailing you all day long in your car become criminal stalking? There seems to be at least a minimum standard of privacy that is also enforced by law.
I proposed an acceptable limit earlier in the thread. Coppers can keep a camera on your license plate at all times, checking to see if the car is stolen or you haven't paid your registration or anything car-related 24/7. They can't use the information to track your daily movements.
Meh, I deleted that comment as I was not actually sure how stalking is defined in legal terms, so I guess I shouldn't talk about it like I do. ;)
Anyway, police taking pictures of number plates, processing them against a stolen vehicle database or whatever and then immediately deleting them afterwards is acceptable in my opinion. It's long(er) term storage of data and linking it that is problematic. They should not be able to have the ability to check where an unsuspicious car was photographed in the last three months or whatever.
PS: Is "unsuspicious" an English word? Google Chrome marks it as wrong...
Think it is not. Nonsuspicious? No, that gets red squigglied too.
It seems to be an English word, but it doesn't seem to mean what I thought... :huh:
unsuspicious
Definition thesaurus.com: gullible, naive
Definition merriam-webster: lacking in worldly wisdom or informed judgment
Caucasian-operated?
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 10:11:53 AMI 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 20, 2013, 10:11:53 AMI 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 ? :P
A item on how this surveillance culture is affecting police operations here:
Quote
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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23433138)
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
But, hey, the roads are a public places, so stay home if you don't want to be randomly strip-searched.
:huh:
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 11:38:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2013, 11:53:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 11:38:16 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 11:55:49 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 11:55:49 AM
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?
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 11:55:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on July 24, 2013, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 11:55:49 AM
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.
Let's err on the side of caution, save some money and don't create such a database in the first place. :)
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2013, 12:22:11 PM
Let's err on the side of caution, save some money and don't create such a database in the first place. :)
:yes:
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
But the potential for abuse is unchanged depending on how efficient something is.
I don't see how that can be so.
Quote from: Maximus on July 24, 2013, 01:02:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 12:17:44 PM
But the potential for abuse is unchanged depending on how efficient something is.
I don't see how that can be so.
Seriously Max, just trust him and his friends, they're The Law, our guardians. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2013, 12:45:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2013, 12:22:11 PM
Let's err on the side of caution, save some money and don't create such a database in the first place. :)
:yes:
But how do you know you are saving money? The legitimate policing uses might actually help cut down on police overhead.
If you have ever calculated a business case you know that the assumptions and estimates one makes will always make a project beneficial or not depending on what the predetermined result of the business case is. So let's forget about the cost and just focus on erring on the side of caution when it comes to stop potential abuse.
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2013, 01:38:34 PM
If you have ever calculated a business case you know that the assumptions and estimates one makes will always make a project beneficial or not depending on what the predetermined result of the business case is. So let's forget about the cost and just focus on erring on the side of caution when it comes to stop potential abuse.
Better yet - let's err on the side of caution and abolish the police! That way we're guaranteed there will be no abuse by the police! :w00t:
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 01:55:56 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2013, 01:38:34 PM
If you have ever calculated a business case you know that the assumptions and estimates one makes will always make a project beneficial or not depending on what the predetermined result of the business case is. So let's forget about the cost and just focus on erring on the side of caution when it comes to stop potential abuse.
Better yet - let's err on the side of caution and abolish the police! That way we're guaranteed there will be no abuse by the police! :w00t:
:cheers:
Quote from: Barrister on July 24, 2013, 11:38:16 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2013, 10:07:32 AM
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.
And this makes sense. The question is, should you have the expectation that the authorities aren't constantly following you electronically and compiling a database on your every move?