ICE License-Plate Tracking Plan Withdrawn Amid Outcry About Privacy 152
An anonymous reader writes "Homeland security officials on Wednesday abruptly shelved a proposal to build a national database of license-plate scans after criticism from privacy advocates. The proposal, which had been posted online last week by the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sought a contractor who could establish a searchable database of license plates, with the times and locations where they were spotted by traffic cameras and other sources. But in a statement late Wednesday, the department announced a reversal. 'The solicitation, which was posted without the awareness of ICE leadership, has been canceled,' said spokeswoman Gillian Christensen. 'While we continue to support a range of technologies to help meet our law enforcement mission, this solicitation will be reviewed to ensure the path forward appropriately meets our operational needs.'"
Withdrawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Withdrawn (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Keep in mind, driving on public roads is a privilege - not a right. Public Safety trumps privacy in public places.
Bullshit. You shouldn't be living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" if you think that doing something that's not strictly necessary means the government can violate your rights or privacy. I'm sure you love the TSA, which was justified based on similar reasoning (That you choose to go into the airport and that it's not necessary, so being molested by the government is okay.).
And yes, privacy is at stake, and yes, people *do* have some degree of privacy even in public places. In your mind,
Re: (Score:2)
Parking authorities routinely use this technology to detect parking scofflaws.
Do they detect scallywags and ruffians too?
It's pure hell on the ne'er-do-wells and Trollops.
In other words, we will subcontract the contract (Score:1)
That way no one will get upset when we hire a company to magically receive license plate information from all the various authorities and deliver that data to us. Everyone wins!
No (Score:2, Funny)
NSA contacted them and said "Don't do that, we already did, all you are doing is stirring up negative controversy with that talk."
"Here's the URL and the credentials, have fun!
This was an attempt to legitimize (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any good way to block this from auto reading, but leave for human eye reading?
Could surrounding your license plate with infrared LEDs block these cameras but still make things perfectly visible to the naked eye?
Can we stop and ask why? (Score:2)
As if the privacy implications and police overreach weren't bad enough, I have been feeling more and more frustrated over the financial aspect of programs like these. Who decided that this program was good or desirable in the first place? We've been getting along fine for a long time now without a national database of license-plate scans.
The same can be said for many other surveillance and technology initiatives by police and government agencies. These programs cost vast amounts of money which could be used
Cheap and Easy (Score:2)
As if the privacy implications and police overreach weren't bad enough, I have been feeling more and more frustrated over the financial aspect of programs like these. Who decided that this program was good or desirable in the first place? We've been getting along fine for a long time now without a national database of license-plate scans.
The same can be said for many other surveillance and technology initiatives by police and government agencies. These programs cost vast amounts of money which could be used for cancer research, or schools, or bridge repairs, or space exploration, or countless other positive things. Alternatively, just give the money back to the taxpayers and let them put it to good use. I'm pretty sure that only a tiny percentage of people would volunteer to fund programs like these out of their own pockets.
A program like this is relatively cheap and easy. I would expect it is already in place on a smaller level in a lot of municipalities (and certainly in DC). ICE probably withdrew it because they were afraid, in the current climate, that a legal challenge might (barely) succeed and threaten all of those prorams.
The benefits to the program are also substantial--it gives you a lot of information for law enforcement *and* for anti-terrorism. They can use that to investigate crimes (who was in area X) (if you
Re: (Score:3)
They can use that to investigate crimes (who was in area X) (if you said your alibi was Y, why were you driving the other way?). If your goal is to prevent crime and to make investigation in the aftermath of an attack easier, you want this.
It does, obviously, come at a privacy cost. But realistically, we're already living with it, and they're not going to stop unless a court orders them to--which is somewhat unlikely.
Sure, and it would be easier to solve crimes if every citizen had a chip implanted that would track all their movements and record everything they do. To some people, freedom is a lot more important than solving every crime or "feeling safe" from terrorists. Unfortunately, the American people as a whole do not feel that way. They welcome more government survellience, take a look at polls conducted after the Snowden revelations - the majority doesn't see a problem with it because they think the NSA is mak
Re: (Score:2)
I have an alternative for you. Allow the people to possess the tools necessary for personal protection on their person at all times. These tools could take several forms, allow people to choose what works for them.
One tool is willingly allow recording. Let people put trackers on themselves and place the data in some sort of third party data store. In the event of a crime against them the data could be released by them or their advocate.
If we get the technology then we could have people with their own pe
Re: (Score:3)
We've been getting along fine for a long time now without a national database of license-plate scans.
Have we? Have we really? You think Iraqi and Afghani terrorists flying commercial jetliners into skyscrapers and federal buildings is "fine"? You think jihadis smuggling weapons of mass destruction onto airplanes in their shoes and their underwear is "fine"?
You, citizen, are the reason this great nation is crumbling before the henchmen of Allah! Why do you hate America so much?
[Disclaimer: It's satire. Save yourself the whoosh.]
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reasoning goes like this:
Step 1: Have contractor establish a searchable database of license plates, with the times and locations where they were spotted by traffic cameras and other sources.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Contractor profit (and kickbacks)!
Lessons of trust (Score:5, Insightful)
If one thing the Edward Snowden releases have shown, is if the authorities are telling you they plan to do something, they are probably already doing it.
Police already doing this... (Score:2)
Every vehicle entering NYC (Score:2)
I caught an unmarked "police" car methodically casing our office complex parking lot. I happed to walk right by as he entered a dead end area of our parking lot. He had a laptop and there were four rectangle boxes mounted on the trunk with lenses pointing outward. Our security group confirmed from videos that they cased our lot as well as nearby businesses. So, at what point is this trespassing? We didn't invite law enforcement on to our lot to collect data. We now know it was the local police department and they've since added these readers to several marked vehicles and have stationed them alongside roadways collecting data. They've recently been sued over refusal to release information under state sunshine laws but I doubt that will stop them. We now have several police departments in the metro area using this. What next? Will they be installed on stop lights right next to the red light cameras?
1. It usually becomes trespassing if someone with authority asks them to leave and they don't, although it varies based on state law.
2. You can, however, sue them for violating four fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. I don't know that you would win, but if it's a private parking lot, you might.
3. They already use these on the West Side Highway as a pilot program for fully automated tolls. Everyone either has EZ-pass or gets billed through the mail based on their license plate. M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:2)
I call Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Like anyone would truly believe an underling could solicit such a bid without direction from the ICE leadership.
The bastards are out of control.
-- kjh
What? The ICE has licence plates? ... That's news. (Score:1)
I didn't know the ICE [bahngalerie.de] had licence plates.
Anyway, I'm all for tracking those, if it helps them being more punctual. ... :-)
Then again, you'd expect Deutsche Bahn to know where all their ICEs are at any given time, no?
I call bullshit (Score:3)
What they really shelved was the public acknowledgement of the desire for the program, I doubt they shelved the plans.
Re: (Score:2)
What they really shelved was the public acknowledgement of the desire for the program, I doubt they shelved the plans.
This.
When the government says, "OK, we're going to stop doing this program you're pissed about," what they really mean is "OK, we're going to stop doing this program that you're pissed about... openly."
The proof is in the COINTELPRO.
"shelved" (Score:2)
Yeah, right. They just figure it's easier to do this clandestinely.
My new bumper sticker... (Score:2)
I'm gong to get a new bumper sticker which will read:
4TH AMD"); DROP TABLE PlateScans;
oblig ref [xkcd.com]
ICE (Score:2)
So they (would of) only be tracking Internal Combustion Engine powered vehicles? Thats a good for the Tesla, Volt and Leaf owners...
Re: (Score:1)
Translation: (Score:2)
..this solicitation will be reviewed to ensure the path forward appropriately meets our operational needs.
Translation: "We'll put this aside for now because you caught us out and pitched a fit about it like the little criminals we believe you all to be, and we'll wait until you inevitably forget about it, then we'll re-word it, hide it in some other, completely unassociated legislation, where it'll be voted on in the middle of the night and passed, then signed into law quietly without so much as a whisper from the media."
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: "We'll put this aside for now because you caught us out and pitched a fit about it like the little criminals we believe you all to be, and we'll wait until you inevitably forget about it, then we'll re-word it, hide it in some other, completely unassociated legislation, where it'll be voted on in the middle of the night and passed, then signed into law quietly without so much as a whisper from the media."
Precisely: that's the common trope. Was I the only one struck by the fact that Snowden's revelations seemed to be the exact goals of the Total Information Awareness program [wikipedia.org]? You know, the program that was so publicly canceled after the massive outcry?
"Maybe what they were really protesting was the name of the program! Let's just call it something else!"
It's shit like this that makes me unhappy to live in a representative democracy. At least in a dictatorship the rulers don't pretend that they are following
Back to Plan A (Score:1)
This isn't for stolen cars (Score:2)
There was a story not more than a few weeks/months ago where a local law enforcement agency had ignored the license plates of stolen cars they'd scanned. This is nothing more than another data point for the government's Total Information Awareness database.
The only way to make this stuff illegal is to pass laws expressly forbidding it. The Feds have been using cute interpretations of privacy laws to pull this crap; with a wink and nod from Congress.
I see lots of outrage on this website; I wonder how much
Couple of things (Score:1)
First, these people (HLS and the Gov in general) can't be trusted, you would never have known about this if they had their way.
Second, to "shelve" it means "re-brand the project" and wait a couple of months then implement it.
Last, you are going to have to do way more than complain if you want things to change, the noose is tightening everyday while most people are not even aware it's around their neck.
http://iweb.tntech.edu/kosburn... [tntech.edu]
Marked as a Troll (Score:2)
Amazing...you state truth with facts and some dipshit with an agenda on here marks your post as a Troll -1 while other's who subscribe to that moderator's point of view are marked "Insightful". WTF? So much for having your point of view heard because of one asswipe.
Been on this site for almost 15 years and only recently have I been marked as Troll because I don't subscribe to the current philosophy that everything the gov't does is bad. /. has gone to the dogs.
The devil is in the details. (Score:2)
I would bet we will see this project continue under some other name with a new and improved excuse for existing.
Reagan Antithesis (Score:2)
Government or Corporation (Score:1)
It's only a matter of time until a private company provides this service.
I thought of doing this years ago.
At the time, I imagined paying people to install cameras in vehicles, and selling access to the database to law enforcement, employers, spouses, etc. Now, that probably isn't necessary. The company could just scan the millions of photos and videos that are posted publicly every day.
If some company isn't already experimenting with this, I would be amazed.
In the end, this will be done, either by the go
So silly; COMPROMISE (Score:2)
So, the RIGHT way to do this is to raise the FEDERAL taxes on diesel/gas by
Re:Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving may be a priveledge. Privacy is a right.
The former can be used to infringe upon the latter.
Re:Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, driving is neither a privelege nor a priveledge. It's a privilege.
An alternate suggestion, much cheaper to implement (Score:5, Insightful)
They are easy to spot for goodness sake, no need for tracking license plates.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is a right to be able to move freely from point A to point B without being tracked. It is a privilege to be able to drive between those points instead of having to walk or ride horseback. The privilege of driving does not negate the right to privacy because of the mode of transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A simple solution would be to get rid of this garbage entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple solution would be to have license plate scanners which check the legality of the license. If it's valid, they don't log it. If it's fake or duplicated, they tag it / photograph the car & driver / alert the cop waiting down the road. Similar to what automated speed traps already do: they ignore you if you drive below the speed limit.
That solution only works if the goal of gathering license plates is to find outdated registrations. Since that is not the (primary) goal, the solution won't work for the government's needs.
Anybody who thinks they really decided not to pursue this program is naive. Because of the public outcry, they pulled the public proposal but they will simply have to find the contractor and hire him in secret now. They are not going to abandon this program, they are just going to hide it better.
Re: Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:1)
They have to go underground because you fuckers freak out any time something with a camera and database is mentioned. As if anyone gives a fuck where you drive.
Instead of evaluating any usefulness this may provide and imposing a transparent solution, it's beat into the ground at the first mention.
Re: (Score:2)
As if anyone gives a fuck where you drive.
That's far too simplistic a way to look at it.
The problem isn't anyone wanting to know where people drive. The problem is what happens when you combine this database with a few others, and the analytics that are possible.
Do some research. The level of detail of a persons life that they can identify from these "harmlessly tiny bits of information" is staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
Your right to privacy doesn't automatically completely disappear because you're on government property. If you go to a public park, you still have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. A cop can't tell you to empty your pockets or open the trunk of your car just because he feels like it and you happen to be on government property. Admittedly "stop and frisk" has made a mockery of that, but it used to apply before they made a mockery of the 4th Amendment.
Re:Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:5, Insightful)
The false equivalence between tracking someone's location while they are in public and illegal search and seizure makes your comment hardly worth replying to.
It's not false equivalence, it's perfectly in line with the SCOTUS ruling that "tracking someone's location" constitutes a search. [washingtonpost.com]
Are you suggesting that when you are in a public park, being filmed by security cameras is a violation of your 4th amendment rights?
Now, you want to talk about false equivalence...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that when you are in a public park, being filmed by security cameras is a violation of your 4th amendment rights?
If the information from those cameras is subject to techniques like automatic recognition, and used to track people who are not under any reasonable suspicion, then yes. To say otherwise is to play the government's apologist, looking for any technicality that can be used to work around the Bill of Rights. That's how a criminal defense lawyer works, because a defendant has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and can only be subject to laws that are much more specific than the Bill of Rights. That's
Re: (Score:2)
and yet we are mostly (as a society) willing to ignore the fact that email is the same as postal mail in the same sense that phone calls are or the fact I pay somebody to store my data on their hard-drive is not the same as my paying a bank to store papers in their vault.
Re: (Score:2)
If your point is that that's also a violation of the 4th Amendment, I couldn't agree more.
Re:Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it a very well thought out document that very much defines the social contract and legal framework in the United States of America. To ignore it is to say that the law is whatever anyone says it is. For you liberals that like things as hey are now, wait a few years and "anyone" might be extremely ruthless and dislike liberals very much. If the constitution is simply "a stupid piece of paper" and means nothing, then said ruthless person could actually kill all liberals with no consequences until someone even more ruthless steps up.
What a moronic statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because you're doing it on a government owned highway.
The same argument could be applied to walking on a government owned sidewalk.
No sir. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between theory and practice is often much smaller in theory than in practice.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the problem in the US these days: the government is supposed to be a steward of the public's property and an avenue by which the public can engage in collective action ("hey guys, let's pay for some garbage trucks and some people to collect the garbage, no?")
But increasingly the government is becoming an independent agent outside the realm of merely acting as a proxy for the public will, and therein lies the problem...
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem in the US these days: the government is supposed to be a steward of the public's property and an avenue by which the public can engage in collective action ("hey guys, let's pay for some garbage trucks and some people to collect the garbage, no?")
But increasingly the government is becoming an independent agent outside the realm of merely acting as a proxy for the public will, and therein lies the problem...
By definition, the government always has a constituency - it's just an organization consisting of people. It's just that of late, it's for/by/of corporations (who are collectively owned mainly by very very wealthy people), as corporations have effectively subverted any attempt by governance from non-wealthy people (i.e., the vast majority of Americans).
Sure, it's nice to think about an 1984-esque big brother, but the reality is that that big brother is comprised of many very wealthy people and corporations
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:1)
Re: Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't bother you because you're only aware of it in an abstract sense. I've got a proposal. Let the government track people all they want, as long as they periodically send people the government's records of where they've been. You'd soon see outrage of historic proportions.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmmm... Any reason we can't do an open-source implementation of the same and post the results online? A grass-roots "track everybody"? Then the government would have to live by the same rules as everyone else.
Note: I'm proposing this mostly tongue-in-cheek, so don't get all uppity.
Re: (Score:1)
One thing: Duplicate, stolen or non existing license plates are detected. In Belgium near the french border the police dispatches an interception in less then 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government lickspittle AC's always make such eloquent and informative rebuttals.
Re:Driving is a privelege, not a right. (Score:4, Informative)
I am so fucking tired of this mantra.
Being able to practicably exercise your mobility rights is a privilege? Being able to practicably exercise your right to live, work and be a contributing member of society is a privilege? Until we have completely ubiquitous transportation, either by public transit or autonomous cars, driving needs to be a right.
What good are your other rights if they are subject to revokable privileges?
(p.s. on a tangential note, driving also ought to be ingrained as a more responsible endeavor than most people believe it to be, not just that annoying thing they have to do between A and B. Our driver training standards in North America are laughably pathetic... you may die of shock when you learn about the years of continual training required in countries where they take driving seriously)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever it involves operating deadly machinery in the presence of others, yes, society needs to be careful about granting that privilege.
I agree, driving not-so-deadly machinery such as bicycles [wikipedia.org] needs to be a right. Unfortunately, that right has been taken away [npr.org] in cert
Re: (Score:2)
NO!
It is a right for anyone who has demonstrated the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. By extension, it is a right to have a mechanism to do so. We call it the driving test. They can't deny you that right just because they don't like you or think you are overly protective of your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's a right to operate a ton-plus machine at 60mph (or about 27m/s) that doesn't always go quite where you want on crowded public property. I can see the implied consent to alcohol testing, since alcohol would affect my driving and potentially endanger others. I don't see any "implied consent" being valid for anything unrelated to my driving ability.
Driving should NOT be right. (Score:2)
Until we have completely ubiquitous transportation, either by public transit or autonomous cars, driving needs to be a right.
NO, absolutely not. There are definitely people that should not be allowed to drive. If you are incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely (either due to medical issues or a simple disregard for the safety of others), it is YOUR problem to find a place to live/work where you can get back and forth without driving (carpool is also an option).
Re: (Score:2)
The RIGHT of free travel between the states is guaranteed in the constitution.
Where? Seriously. I believe that it is a basic right, and in the 19th century and before was treated as such (there are several SCOTUS rulings that dealt with that). It may have been handled under a longstanding common law right and/or the 9th Amendment, but it's not specifically enumerated. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIGHT of free travel between the states is guaranteed in the constitution.
Where?
Here [wikipedia.org].
Unless the state you live in has a law against free travel, of course. In which case I recommend moving to a different one ASAP, if they'll let you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the 10th Ammendment says that you can move from state to state. But it doesn't say that everyone you pass has to close their eyes and pretend not to see or recognize you. Heck, I can even go home and tell my wife, "You know, I saw CanHasDIY in the park today." Or to go even further, "I was taking pictures in the park today. Is that CanHasDIY?" None of those things restricts your movement, it just means you don't turn invisible when you're in public unless you're somewhere that you can reasonably e
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the 10th Ammendment says that you can move from state to state. But it doesn't say that everyone you pass has to close their eyes and pretend not to see or recognize you. Heck, I can even go home and tell my wife, "You know, I saw CanHasDIY in the park today." Or to go even further, "I was taking pictures in the park today. Is that CanHasDIY?" None of those things restricts your movement, it just means you don't turn invisible when you're in public unless you're somewhere that you can reasonably expect a "right to privacy" (e.g. using a public toilet, not driving across a bridge.)
False equivalence.
You are not the government, and thus, the Constitution does not specifically restrict your rights in regard to surveillance of other citizens; however, many states and municipalities have anti-stalking laws that do cover such activities.
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-stalking laws? Yes, we are certainly wallowing in false equivalence. Seeing someone I recognize and mentioning it to my wife is stalking now? "Many states"? I don't know which state you're in, but I'd hate to be there if I can be charged for failing to pretend not to recognize somebody.
One thing you did get right:
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
Absolutely - None of this does. Which is why it has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Because none of this restricts free travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-stalking laws? Yes, we are certainly wallowing in false equivalence. Seeing someone I recognize and mentioning it to my wife is stalking now? "Many states"? I don't know which state you're in, but I'd hate to be there if I can be charged for failing to pretend not to recognize somebody.
False equivalence indeed - how does a single instance of recognizing a person in public equate to the government tracking a person's location? It doesn't; however, if you were to do the same thing, i.e. follow a person around, keeping track of their whereabouts, you could run afoul of anti-stalking laws.
My mistake for assuming you would understand this concept with having to have it spelled out for you to the letter.
One thing you did get right:
Which has nothing to do with the right of free travel, FYI.
Absolutely - None of this does. Which is why it has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. Because none of this restricts free travel.
I was responding to OP, who asked where the right to freely travel is enshrined; I correctly
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-stalking laws? Yes, we are certainly wallowing in false equivalence. Seeing someone I recognize and mentioning it to my wife is stalking now?
Of course not. OTOH, deploying a nation wide system fo spotting someone and maintaining a database that shows everywhere they have been and the last place they were seen 24/7 most certainly is stalking. In big red letters with several exclamation points.
Re: (Score:2)
TRAVELING wherever you want is a RIGHT. Driving is only a "privilege" so much as you OPERATING the vehicle.
The US Government permitted the auto companies to purchase profitable and well-used public transportation companies and shut them down to increase demand for their product. Public transportation in the USA has never recovered. There are maybe two US cities with useful public transportation. When I lived in SF I could drive for fifteen minutes including parking or I could take two buses and the Muni for over an hour, if I wanted to get to work. I could walk there as quickly; I did, once. But SF is hilly and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please provide a link for your assertion?
Yes [wikipedia.org]. But this is a well-known part of American history... if you're an American citizen, you damned well should have been able to find this with Google. If not, my apologies.
Re: (Score:1)
Privacy is a right. And the mere fact that something is unnecessary does not mean you give the government consent to violate your rights, which you can't do, anyway. Also, keep in mind that this is about the kind of privacy that prevents the government from using surveillance technology to keep tabs on you in public places, not the kind that ensures that no one can see you in public places; the latter doesn't exist, but the former damn well should.
Using your logic, the TSA is 100% okay. They actually used l
driving is not a privilege, it's a right (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know where this "driving is a privilege" nonsense comes from. If "driving is a privilege", why not walking or breathing? They are all activities people engage in while on public lands. Unless there is a compelling public interest, government has no authority to restrict what we do on public lands; there simply is no constitutional basis for it. The restrictions we impose on driving needed to be justified by safety and environmental concerns.
But you're right: you have no expectation of privacy on public roadways. That means any private party can, if they so choose, collect your license plate information and follow you around. But the government is not a private party; it is more restricted in what it can and should be allowed to do. Police can't just follow you around without cause, and they shouldn't be allowed to collect license plate information without cause either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, that doesn't make it a "privilege". Driving is a priori a right because it is not restricted in the Constitution. However, for practical reasons, we regulate it. If technology makes driving safer, then the restrictions become invalid.
The kind of reasoning you apply, namely that using or possessing something lethal is a privilege, is a prescription for totalitarianism; it contradicts basic legal and c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have no expectation of privacy on public roadways. If someone wants to hang out behind a cactus with a 400mm lens and take pictures of me as I drive by then that's his right, so long as he is somewhere he is legally allowed to be and I'm in public.
The question is whether or not the government should be doing it. The government doesn't get to do anything it has a legal right to do; the government does whatever we tell it to do and not a thing more. Is it unconstitutional for the cops to take pictures of mo
Re: (Score:2)
But note that if that guy joins a network of guys with cameras and maintains a central database of Entropius sightings, he and his partners may run afoul of anti-stalker laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get a kooky idea like that? Look at the history of licensing drivers. There is no good reason to think it is at all a privilege rather than a right.
Even where we acknowledge that public safety demands some assurance of competency (and I think it does), driving remains a right for anyone who demonstrates the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Because we don't like you or because you won't tell us everywhere you go is not a valid reason to withhold acknowledgement that a person has maste
Re: (Score:1)
And regardless of my feelings about it, even free speech has limits in the US. Does that mean it isn't a right? I don't understand these people's logic.
Re: (Score:3)
I could criticize you for posting something like that, but I'm sure you're only following orders.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate freedom to that degree? Your arguments have been debunked time and time again.
So, if you don't like having your licensed plate tracked by government, DON'T FUCKING DRIVE. You have no right to drive in the first place.
You have no right to fly on a plane, so rejoice as the TSA thugs molest you.
If the government can violate your rights simply because you choose to participate in some activity that's not strictly necessary and/or is a privilege, you have no rights; you have tyranny.
Re:Duh - Not Private (Score:5, Insightful)
So just what element is private about a plate openly displayed in public
What's private is the history of where that plate has been - tracking a person's car without a warrant is illegal, per the SCOTUS. [washingtonpost.com]
Shit, man, in these days of parallel construction [wikipedia.org] it amazes me I have to respond to questions like this...
Re: (Score:2)
That SCOTUS decision says nothing of the sort. It says the police are not allowed to secretly plant a tracking device without a warrant. It says nothing at all about the legality of tracking via something on the car which is publicly visible, whether it's the license plate or just keeping track of the make, model, and specific pattern of dents your car has.
I think tracking like this is going to become de rigueur within a very few years. I
Re: (Score:2)
How do you stop the government from placing cameras everywhere to track our movements? Easy, you see a government camera you smash it. Tell everyone you meet to do the same. If enough people do this then the government can't replace them fast enough. If people get arrested for it then demand a trial by jury. If the jury is equally pissed off about the cameras then no one gets a conviction. Vote for people that won't put cameras everywhere.
If none of that works then what you have is the police arrestin
Re: (Score:2)
The very purpose of a license plate is to make public the identity of a specific vehicle. Trying to say that govenrment or anyone else can not keep records of where a plate is noticed is absurd.
Bullshit, once again. You government drones need to think for yourselves. It is not absurd to say that while it is possible for people to see you in public places, the government shouldn't be installing surveillance equipment everywhere. The latter is what people want to be free from.
It does not track the owner at all. The tag identifies the car and not the driver.
But it tracks the car, which is bad enough. In my case, it would be more than enough to track me.
Worse yet one doesn't even need a plate unless one uses the vehicle on a public road.
Which nearly everyone does. A moot point.
So just what element is private about a plate openly displayed in public.
The part where we step up and demand that the government not install surveillance equipme
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, license plates are for identifying cars. The 4th Amendment, however, was preserved due to the sheer volume of cars out there. A government official (police, FBI, etc.) had to "manually" focus on a single car at a time when there was a reason to pay attention to it. The extra work required to track too many people at once protected the 4th amendment.
Today's tech, however, can now passively track everyone with no effort - which blows away that illusory wall between the 4th amendment and license plate tra
Re: (Score:1)
Read the numerous comments above that debunk your shortsighted, freedom-hating nonsense.