My flatmate got caught for having an expired registration by a cop using one of those systems. I am a card-carrying ACLU member myself but you absolutely do not have the right not to have your plates run by the cops. It's part of the deal, you give up your name and address and pay a fee, and you get to drive a multi-ton death machine and have nice roads on which to drive said machine.

So I don't see a problem with this.

Being in public allows public officials to see the things that are required to be displayed publicly.

Yes.

This just makes it easier to do what they already do.

They've been using these systems for some time now. Do try to keep up submitter.

And the fact that they can look at their own databases shouldn't surprise you, nor does it infringe upon the Constitution. It would be no different if they had a cop standing at the corner and writing down plates and noting where he saw them and then sharing that information with his department (or her, as the case may be). While in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The reason the ACLU isn't involved in this? Nothing that's being done is improper.

It's becoming a scifi world. So long as we can record "them" -- should be cool.

I like how this is all the ACLU's fault.

Demetrius: They've been using these systems for some time now. Do try to keep up submitter.

And the fact that they can look at their own databases shouldn't surprise you, nor does it infringe upon the Constitution. It would be no different if they had a cop standing at the corner and writing down plates and noting where he saw them and then sharing that information with his department (or her, as the case may be). While in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The reason the ACLU isn't involved in this? Nothing that's being done is improper.

The problem with that is that a single cop is physically incapable of writing down every license plate.

A similar issue came up with one of the cases the SCOTUS heard this session, United States v. Jones (see Scotusblog for more), where the issue was whether the cops can place a GPS device on anyone's car when it's in public, and track everywhere the car goes, without any warrant. The government argued that they didn't need a warrant, because they could just have had an officer tail the car wherever it went and so therefore didn't need to take any special precautions.

Thankfully, at arguments it would appear that even the conservative members of the court are unwilling to agree with the government, and may make them get a warrant to install GPS tracking devices on private cars.

Rincewind53: Demetrius: They've been using these systems for some time now. Do try to keep up submitter.

And the fact that they can look at their own databases shouldn't surprise you, nor does it infringe upon the Constitution. It would be no different if they had a cop standing at the corner and writing down plates and noting where he saw them and then sharing that information with his department (or her, as the case may be). While in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The reason the ACLU isn't involved in this? Nothing that's being done is improper.

The problem with that is that a single cop is physically incapable of writing down every license plate.

A similar issue came up with one of the cases the SCOTUS heard this session, United States v. Jones (see Scotusblog for more), where the issue was whether the cops can place a GPS device on anyone's car when it's in public, and track everywhere the car goes, without any warrant. The government argued that they didn't need a warrant, because they could just have had an officer tail the car wherever it went and so therefore didn't need to take any special precautions.

Thankfully, at arguments it would appear that even the conservative members of the court are unwilling to agree with the government, and may make them get a warrant to install GPS tracking devices on private cars.

While I agree with you on the GPS devices, this is significantly different. This is keeping track of what they see (or their car camera does) and not actively tracking a specific car by using some hidden technology on the car. I don't doubt for a second that were this to go to court it would stand up with no problem.

GAT_00: I like how this is all the ACLU's fault.

It's always the ACLU's fault.

Rincewind53: Demetrius: They've been using these systems for some time now. Do try to keep up submitter.

And the fact that they can look at their own databases shouldn't surprise you, nor does it infringe upon the Constitution. It would be no different if they had a cop standing at the corner and writing down plates and noting where he saw them and then sharing that information with his department (or her, as the case may be). While in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The reason the ACLU isn't involved in this? Nothing that's being done is improper.

The problem with that is that a single cop is physically incapable of writing down every license plate.

A similar issue came up with one of the cases the SCOTUS heard this session, United States v. Jones (see Scotusblog for more), where the issue was whether the cops can place a GPS device on anyone's car when it's in public, and track everywhere the car goes, without any warrant. The government argued that they didn't need a warrant, because they could just have had an officer tail the car wherever it went and so therefore didn't need to take any special precautions.

Thankfully, at arguments it would appear that even the conservative members of the court are unwilling to agree with the government, and may make them get a warrant to install GPS tracking devices on private cars.

I think that situation's a little bit different than this one. The fact that they're physically attaching something to your car seems relevant to me. It's not just following you; it's messing with your property. If they made a small drone that could follow your car around, I'd feel differently (and I suspect the court would too).

Demetrius:

While I agree with you on the GPS devices, this is significantly different. This is keeping track of what they see (or their car camera does) and not actively tracking a specific car by using some hidden technology on the car. I don't doubt for a second that were this to go to court it would stand up with no problem.

While I agree that the two things are different, I disagree that it is a significant difference. In many ways, the government's use of these systems can rise to the same level as the GPS. In cities with increasing surveillance nets, an automatic license-plate tracker can be used to find out where anyone's car is at any point. A cop sitting at his desk can simply ask a computer to look through the database and find out every single location someone has visited in the last week, for instance, with no warrant.

We even had an article a little while back about a city that was implementing city-wide use of these scanners for all of its surveillance cams. So, while I tend to think that you have a very good argument when we're talking about just a single cop in his car with a single scanner, the technology itself lends itself to wide abuse.

nardman: My flatmate got caught for having an expired registration by a cop using one of those systems

I usually just get caught because the cop sees the big expiration date on the registration sticker. Seems like using something automated in that case might be overkill...

Demetrius: While I agree with you on the GPS devices, this is significantly different. This is keeping track of what they see (or their car camera does) and not actively tracking a specific car by using some hidden technology on the car. I don't doubt for a second that were this to go to court it would stand up with no problem.

serial_crusher: I think that situation's a little bit different than this one. The fact that they're physically attaching something to your car seems relevant to me. It's not just following you; it's messing with your property. If they made a small drone that could follow your car around, I'd feel differently (and I suspect the court would too).

I agree. Attaching something to someone's car, if done by a private citizen to another, constitutes destruction of property or possibly trespassing. The police should only be able to do such a thing with a warrant.

Rincewind53: Demetrius:

While I agree with you on the GPS devices, this is significantly different. This is keeping track of what they see (or their car camera does) and not actively tracking a specific car by using some hidden technology on the car. I don't doubt for a second that were this to go to court it would stand up with no problem.

While I agree that the two things are different, I disagree that it is a significant difference. In many ways, the government's use of these systems can rise to the same level as the GPS. In cities with increasing surveillance nets, an automatic license-plate tracker can be used to find out where anyone's car is at any point. A cop sitting at his desk can simply ask a computer to look through the database and find out every single location someone has visited in the last week, for instance, with no warrant.

We even had an article a little while back about a city that was implementing city-wide use of these scanners for all of its surveillance cams. So, while I tend to think that you have a very good argument when we're talking about just a single cop in his car with a single scanner, the technology itself lends itself to wide abuse.

There might be room to argue about whether or not it's ok for the police to retain that data, but I'm not a lawyer. Performing a spot check and discarding a negative result is different than storing it for later use.

I like to think the spirit of the 4th amendment is to prevent obtrusive search and seizure. i.e. the police can't come into your house and trash the place looking for evidence. If they can do it in a way that doesn't interfere with your normal life, I don't immediately see a problem for it. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and that's kind of an offshoot of the "if you haven't done anything wrong..." argument, so plenty of folks will probably disagree.

Excuse me? Cops have been running license plates manually for decades. Its part of the deal. Driving on the roads is a privilege not a right.

Also, you're in public. You lose a lot (but not all) your rights to privacy. Deal with it, or build a fort in the forests of Idaho.

If a 6' 3" lanky white guy with a handlebar moustache, wearing a hoodie that probably should have been washed days ago robs a bank... I have no problem with the cops stopping me to see if I robbed said bank (since I fit that description).

serial_crusher: I like to think the spirit of the 4th amendment is to prevent obtrusive search and seizure. i.e. the police can't come into your house and trash the place looking for evidence. If they can do it in a way that doesn't interfere with your normal life, I don't immediately see a problem for it. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and that's kind of an offshoot of the "if you haven't done anything wrong..." argument, so plenty of folks will probably disagree.

That's a positively terrifying viewpoint.

serial_crusher: I like to think the spirit of the 4th amendment is to prevent obtrusive search and seizure. i.e. the police can't come into your house and trash the place looking for evidence. If they can do it in a way that doesn't interfere with your normal life, I don't immediately see a problem for it.

o_O

Any tricks to f*ck with the system? Can I paint the back of my car to look like a CAPTCHA? I am open to suggestions.

serial_crusher: I like to think the spirit of the 4th amendment is to prevent obtrusive search and seizure. i.e. the police can't come into your house and trash the place looking for evidence. If they can do it in a way that doesn't interfere with your normal life, I don't immediately see a problem for it.

I hope this was just poor phrasing... You mean prevent obtrusive search and seizure in public but still protect against all forms of search and seizure in your private life, right?

violentsalvation: Any tricks to f*ck with the system? Can I paint the back of my car to look like a CAPTCHA? I am open to suggestions.

I have a magic rock that will prevent the scanners from spotting you. It will also keep away tigers.

Cops - worthless pieces of sh*t. Oh, excuse me, so sorry.

COPS - WORTHLESS PIECES OF SH*T.

serial_crusher: I like to think the spirit of the 4th amendment is to prevent obtrusive search and seizure. i.e. the police can't come into your house and trash the place looking for evidence. If they can do it in a way that doesn't interfere with your normal life, I don't immediately see a problem for it. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and that's kind of an offshoot of the "if you haven't done anything wrong..." argument, so plenty of folks will probably disagree.

So you think that if they go in your house while you are not home, search it, don't make a mess, and leave before you return, it's okay without a warrant? Because it didn't interfere with your normal life.

StanTheMan: AcneVulgaris: GAT_00: I like how this is all the ACLU's fault.

becuz socializm!

Yeah, well when the ACLU farktards start defending the Second Amendment, then they can be taken seriously. Until then, the Constitution is a means, not an end to those intellectually dishonest farks.

This

Demetrius:
The reason the ACLU isn't involved in this? Nothing that's being done is improper.

They came for the Constitution, but I did nothing because it wasn't improper....

nardman: My flatmate got caught for having an expired registration by a cop using one of those systems. I am a card-carrying ACLU member myself but you absolutely do not have the right not to have your plates run by the cops. It's part of the deal, you give up your name and address and pay a fee, and you get to drive a multi-ton death machine and have nice roads on which to drive said machine.

So I don't see a problem with this.

I got caught for having expired registration by a cop using this system and still have no problem with it. I'm not a card-carrying member of the ACLU but most definitely a supporter. The license plate is out in the open and I have absolutely no expectation of privacy. It's not the system's or the cop's fault I forgot to renew.

/Tried to renew via my Blackberry but I didn't have the renewal form on me to get the code.
//Cop didn't give me a ticket since I was honestly trying to renew on the spot.

kindms: What people are failing to understand is this.

What if your car is parked on your private property ? Do the police have the OK to drive down the street with their sensors on scanning every car parked on private property ?

Those scanners don't stop at your lawn ya know. I live next to a commuter lot and the local police have had these things for a while. They drive the rows of cars scanning everyone daily. They would know who is parked there, when, for what durations, make, model etc of all the cars in a commuter lot, who they belong to etc etc. All without the need for warrants etc.

That is a lot different than making sure your registration is in order.

The issue isn't really the scanners then, is it. The police have always had the ability to radio in a plate number and get the same information. Can someone elaborate on how suddenly this is a rights issue when it wasn't 5 years ago?

R.A.Danny: kindms: What people are failing to understand is this.

What if your car is parked on your private property ? Do the police have the OK to drive down the street with their sensors on scanning every car parked on private property ?

Those scanners don't stop at your lawn ya know. I live next to a commuter lot and the local police have had these things for a while. They drive the rows of cars scanning everyone daily. They would know who is parked there, when, for what durations, make, model etc of all the cars in a commuter lot, who they belong to etc etc. All without the need for warrants etc.

That is a lot different than making sure your registration is in order.

The issue isn't really the scanners then, is it. The police have always had the ability to radio in a plate number and get the same information. Can someone elaborate on how suddenly this is a rights issue when it wasn't 5 years ago?

Actively scanning a single plate to find out information about the car is very different than passively scanning every single car that passes to find out who's got a warrant.

fireclown: R.A.Danny: The issue isn't really the scanners then, is it. The police have always had the ability to radio in a plate number and get the same information. Can someone elaborate on how suddenly this is a rights issue when it wasn't 5 years ago?

because it is now fairly simple to scan every single car, and bounce that information against any number of databases.

I still don't get it. It is faster and more convenient now, but this data was always available.

R.A.Danny: The issue isn't really the scanners then, is it. The police have always had the ability to radio in a plate number and get the same information. Can someone elaborate on how suddenly this is a rights issue when it wasn't 5 years ago?

Database retention. Sure, maybe the cops could have made a detailed manual record of the location, date, and time and correlate that with the license plate, and then had a searchable database later... but they typically don't, because that's a lot of work. However, with an automated system, all that happens with almost no increase in workload or cost. A system like this has a a high potential for abuse of such a detailed record of your whereabouts on a police server somewhere that you are not allowed to see.

Checking your plate to see if your registration is up to date is lawful and constitutional. Amassing a database correlating your car's physical location with dates and times requires a search warrant, just as surveillance would. We have to keep a closer eye on automated systems to make sure privacy is protected than we do on manual systems, because of the high potential for abuse.

Launch Code: Driving is a privilege, it's not a right! Anyone having a problem with this, most likely drivers with something to hide, should take the bus. More highway for me.

That's not really the issue here.