If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Newspaper)   ACLU and EFF sue LAPD over ALPR   (thenewspaper.com) divider line 44
    More: Interesting, ACLU, LAPD, Electronic Freedom Foundation  
•       •       •

3676 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:34 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-03 02:26:16 PM
WTF?
 
2014-02-03 02:37:17 PM
KMFDM?
 
2014-02-03 02:38:31 PM
SO?
 
GBB [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 02:39:23 PM
LARP?
 
2014-02-03 02:39:47 PM
BFD.
 
GBB [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 02:41:02 PM
NTTAWWT
 
2014-02-03 02:42:12 PM
OMG, my BBF Jill just BBC.
 
2014-02-03 02:43:34 PM
TL;DR
 
2014-02-03 02:44:05 PM
BBQ
 
2014-02-03 02:44:50 PM
In before "But out in public, you have no right to privacy."

That's as may be, but I think we as a society need to rethink what that means.  It used to be that the primary risk from being "out in public" came from being unlucky and having someone see you emerging from a porno theater, or happening to observe your car parked outside your mistress's house, or something.  Or you had to already be the target of a police investigation for some reason.  If you weren't already under investigation or the victim of some bad luck, your movements were pretty well anonymous.

The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.
 
2014-02-03 02:45:01 PM
LOL
 
2014-02-03 02:45:38 PM
Eh.  I have no problem with this.  I've known a few cops, most of them are bored shiatless half the time and would run random plates they see while driving around (and even get lucky every now in then find out that it's stolen or the owner had warrants out).
 
2014-02-03 02:45:55 PM
And that's AFU
 
2014-02-03 02:48:35 PM

geekbikerskum: The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.


It's also government's wet dream.  It's herd management and we're the herd.  They're not going to stop.
 
2014-02-03 02:48:44 PM

geekbikerskum: In before "But out in public, you have no right to privacy."

That's as may be, but I think we as a society need to rethink what that means.  It used to be that the primary risk from being "out in public" came from being unlucky and having someone see you emerging from a porno theater, or happening to observe your car parked outside your mistress's house, or something.  Or you had to already be the target of a police investigation for some reason.  If you weren't already under investigation or the victim of some bad luck, your movements were pretty well anonymous.

The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.


PP!*

/* party pooper...you ruined a perfectly cromulent acronym thread!
 
2014-02-03 02:54:21 PM
ALPR is almost as bad as SCMODS.
 
2014-02-03 03:00:27 PM
Hey, LAPD, DIAF.
 
2014-02-03 03:04:53 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: ALPR is almost as bad as SCMODS.


Is it serious?
 
2014-02-03 03:06:46 PM
OMFG
 
2014-02-03 03:10:35 PM

geekbikerskum: The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.


License plate readers don't actually track any specific person's movements. They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times, something anyone standing on a street corner could do. If there is a violation of privacy, and there is an argument whether someone has a right to privacy while on a public street, it comes when the data is retrieved. If the police use that data to track you while you are doing something perfectly legal, that would be a violation. If they use it to identify the location of violators, then it's legally and ethically acceptable.

Given the massive amounts of data these things record, it's impossible for the cops to track a random person's movements unless they specifically sought to track their movements.

If it offends a person because they had their license plate tracked in public, then the only way to avoid that is to stay home. You can't expect privacy in a public place.

So far the only use I've seen for license plate readers has been good. Example: A woman complained to the police that her ex-husband violated a protection order by continuously driving past her house. He denied being anywhere near her house at the time of the alleged violations. However, an LPR showed him passing through a nearby intersection at the time of the violation and when he claimed to be at home across town. He was charged and convicted based on that evidence.

I can give other examples too, all of which are legitimate uses of the LPR.
 
2014-02-03 03:23:00 PM

geekbikerskum: In before "But out in public, you have no right to privacy."

That's as may be, but I think we as a society need to rethink what that means.  It used to be that the primary risk from being "out in public" came from being unlucky and having someone see you emerging from a porno theater, or happening to observe your car parked outside your mistress's house, or something.  Or you had to already be the target of a police investigation for some reason.  If you weren't already under investigation or the victim of some bad luck, your movements were pretty well anonymous.

The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.


"Reasonable expectation of privacy" would work just fine if dumbarse judges would actually think about what's reasonable. No one expects to not be occasionally photographed while out and about. But NO ONE would think someone tracking your every movement is reasonable. Just because you can occasionally be photographed in public doesn't make ALL photographing in public reasonable. It's incredibly stupid how one has been applied to the other.  You can prove it experimentally pretty easily. Go to a mall, pick out a random person and follow them around pointing a camera at them. I guaranteeyou that they will call the police at some point. No one thinks that's reasonable.
 
2014-02-03 03:24:20 PM
UNBELIEVABLE!
 
2014-02-03 03:26:39 PM

CruiserTwelve: So far the only use I've seen for license plate readers has been good.


Which TFA says is 0.0005 percent of the usage.

it's impossible for the cops to track a random person's movements unless they specifically sought to track their movements.

Hardly. The system tracks plates, times and locations and records them in a database. See a hot chick drive down the street? Just type in the plate and you can find a driving pattern. She usually drives to Five Guys for lunch on Wednesdays, etc. Perfect way to set up a "pat down for weapons."

Since there's no oversight and no accountability, there's nothing to keep that from happening.
 
2014-02-03 03:35:23 PM

CruiserTwelve: something anyone standing on a street corner could do.


Yeah, except:
a) No one does.
b) And if someone did, how long do you think it would take before DHS got involved?

The difference is the police are doing it. It's not just "anyone."
 
2014-02-03 03:42:36 PM
I have no problem with them reading the plates and seeing if they are flagged for some reason - same thing cops on the street do every day.  I DO have a problem with them keeping all the data on all the plates they read for extended periods of time, especially if they refuse to reveal anything about what they do (or want to do) with that saved data.  No legitimate reason for the government to keep it for more than a few days.
 
2014-02-03 03:43:28 PM

Taxcheat: Hardly. The system tracks plates, times and locations and records them in a database. See a hot chick drive down the street? Just type in the plate and you can find a driving pattern. She usually drives to Five Guys for lunch on Wednesdays, etc. Perfect way to set up a "pat down for weapons."

Since there's no oversight and no accountability, there's nothing to keep that from happening.


There are laws to prevent that from happening. The same laws that prevent a cop from pulling that same hot chick over and "patting her down for weapons" as you say, without tracking her movements. Why would a cop need to establish a driving pattern to engage in bad behavior?
 
2014-02-03 03:48:11 PM
"We have also argued... that the only way to have an informed public debate about appropriate limits on ALPRs is through greater transparency about how the technology is actually being used"

If the police are using a tool without supervision, you can safely assume they are abusing it in the worst ways possible.
 
2014-02-03 03:48:45 PM

Peki: Yeah, except:
a) No one does.


But the point is that someone COULD do that. The point was to illustrate the futility of claiming privacy on a public street.

b) And if someone did, how long do you think it would take before DHS got involved?

Irrelevant.

The difference is the police are doing it. It's not just "anyone."

Agreed. Government actions are controlled by the constitution, so the argument is whether recording license plates is a violation of the constitution. I think it would be hard to argue that the simple act of recording those plates is a violation. There may be an argument against the use of that information.  As I said above, if the information is used improperly that could be a constitutional violation, but the mere gathering of that information in a public place isn't.
 
2014-02-03 03:59:48 PM

CruiserTwelve: Peki: Yeah, except:
a) No one does.

But the point is that someone COULD do that. The point was to illustrate the futility of claiming privacy on a public street.

b) And if someone did, how long do you think it would take before DHS got involved?

Irrelevant.

The difference is the police are doing it. It's not just "anyone."

Agreed. Government actions are controlled by the constitution, so the argument is whether recording license plates is a violation of the constitution. I think it would be hard to argue that the simple act of recording those plates is a violation. There may be an argument against the use of that information.  As I said above, if the information is used improperly that could be a constitutional violation, but the mere gathering of that information in a public place isn't.


Personally I'd use it to track the movements of my girlfriend, but that's just me.
 
2014-02-03 04:06:40 PM

CruiserTwelve: However, an LPR showed him passing through a nearby intersection at the time of the violation and when he claimed to be at home across town. He was charged and convicted based on that evidence.


CruiserTwelve: License plate readers don't actually track any specific person's movements. They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times,


So which is it?  Does it track people (for all intents), or "just vehicles"?  If it's just vehicles, why couldn't this protection order violator just claim he wasn't driving the car?
 
2014-02-03 04:10:52 PM

CruiserTwelve: There are laws to prevent that from happening.


Are they anything like the laws that supposedly keep police from violating traffic laws when they're not on a call?  Because those work like a charm, let me tell you.
 
2014-02-03 04:14:11 PM
Take a few minutes, relax, close your eyes and imagine the worst possible scenario for the use of this information.

Then, open your eyes.
 
2014-02-03 04:32:41 PM

CruiserTwelve: Why would a cop need to establish a driving pattern to engage in bad behavior?


How about we put every cop car's movements on a live Google map for everyone to watch? That way, you know, we can tell when an officer is goofing off.

After all, there's no expectation of privacy in public, especially in a vehicle paid for and maintained at public expense.
 
2014-02-03 04:46:25 PM

Taxcheat: CruiserTwelve: Why would a cop need to establish a driving pattern to engage in bad behavior?

How about we put every cop car's movements on a live Google map for everyone to watch? That way, you know, we can tell when an officer is goofing off.

After all, there's no expectation of privacy in public, especially in a vehicle paid for and maintained at public expense.


To quote the cops themselves, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"
 
2014-02-03 04:58:37 PM
They are, however, down with OPP.
 
2014-02-03 05:14:59 PM
The ACLU is only suing the LAPD to prevent ALPR, but not the LASD or the CHP?

FYI, LASD's CO is from the OC. OTOH, the LAPD's OC is from the LBC, but that's still LA.

CSB?
 
2014-02-03 05:19:26 PM

Taxcheat: How about we put every cop car's movements on a live Google map for everyone to watch? That way, you know, we can tell when an officer is goofing off.

After all, there's no expectation of privacy in public, especially in a vehicle paid for and maintained at public expense.


Yeah, there's no way that cunning plan of yours can fail or be a hindrance to the public well being.
 
2014-02-03 05:39:00 PM
i1.ytimg.com

Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.
 
2014-02-03 05:44:41 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Yeah, there's no way that cunning plan of yours can fail or be a hindrance to the public well being.


CruiserTwelve says there are laws to prevent that from happening.
 
2014-02-03 08:22:14 PM
Who makes the best plastic license plate covers that illegibly distort when photographed?  I don't know what they're called, but I've seen em.
 
2014-02-03 10:38:22 PM

Taxcheat: How about we put every cop car's movements on a live Google map for everyone to watch? That way, you know, we can tell when an officer is goofing off.

After all, there's no expectation of privacy in public, especially in a vehicle paid for and maintained at public expense.


Three things:

1. How does this relate to license plate readers? They don't put anyone's car on a map for everyone to watch.

2. How would you be able to tell if a cop was goofing off? Because his car was sitting still? Like if he was writing a report, or handling a call, or making an arrest? Mapping a police cars movements wouldn't tell you anything but where he was.

3. Do you really think it's a good idea to let everyone, including those with evil intent, know where the police are at all times?
 
2014-02-03 10:39:53 PM

geekbikerskum: To quote the cops themselves, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"


Cops say that? What cops say that? I don't know any cops that say that.
 
2014-02-04 08:52:52 AM

CruiserTwelve: geekbikerskum: The ability to amass large amounts of data on the movements of ordinary citizens and sift through that data is unprecedented, and drastically reduces if not eliminates the notion of anonymity in public spaces.

License plate readers don't actually track any specific person's movements. They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times, something anyone standing on a street corner could do. If there is a violation of privacy, and there is an argument whether someone has a right to privacy while on a public street, it comes when the data is retrieved. If the police use that data to track you while you are doing something perfectly legal, that would be a violation. If they use it to identify the location of violators, then it's legally and ethically acceptable.

Given the massive amounts of data these things record, it's impossible for the cops to track a random person's movements unless they specifically sought to track their movements.

If it offends a person because they had their license plate tracked in public, then the only way to avoid that is to stay home. You can't expect privacy in a public place.

So far the only use I've seen for license plate readers has been good. Example: A woman complained to the police that her ex-husband violated a protection order by continuously driving past her house. He denied being anywhere near her house at the time of the alleged violations. However, an LPR showed him passing through a nearby intersection at the time of the violation and when he claimed to be at home across town. He was charged and convicted based on that evidence.

I can give other examples too, all of which are legitimate uses of the LPR.


Dood, you GOTTA start reading some Sherlock Holmes books. You desperately need a clue before you hurt yourself.
 
2014-02-04 02:40:11 PM

CruiserTwelve: They simply record the location of all vehicles at specific times, something anyone standing on a street corner could do.


There are many things that a person acting as an individual may legally perform that is outside the scope of what the government is permitted.

The only way I see these LPRs being constitutional is if, without recording anything, they scan all the plates that pass through, check them against a database of legitimately flagged plates, and trigger an alert if a match is found. Otherwise it is no different than stalking.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report