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.

(BetaBoston)   A look at the license plate surveillance business. There's a 40% chance it's looked at you in the past year   (betaboston.com) divider line 24
    More: Interesting, Irish Republican Army, information broker  
•       •       •

3426 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 9:53 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-05 09:57:34 AM
They're only using information that can only be accessed with a human's eyes.

Should we also be outraged that someone can use a cellphone in order to report a stolen car?

There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public. That's sort of what being in public means.
 
2014-03-05 10:02:22 AM
In before the defenders of the surveillance state.

/Authoritarian fascist, if you're American, you probably are one.
 
2014-03-05 10:16:09 AM
A friend of mine owns a repo company and uses these things...he drives through Walmart parking lot every single day.  And every single day he repo's a car from the Walmart parking lot.

The local cops have asked him on a couple of occasions to help them out in looking for a vehicle and he has politely told them to go fark themselves unless they wanted to pay him an ungodly retainer for his services.

/eh, not CSB, but whatevs...
 
2014-03-05 10:17:50 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: In before the defenders of the surveillance state.

/Authoritarian fascist, if you're American, you probably are one.


You weren't in before the usual talking point about no expectation of privacy in public, as if there is no difference between being in public and having a cop on every street corner 24 hours a day.
 
2014-03-05 10:22:54 AM

Fano: HotIgneous Intruder: In before the defenders of the surveillance state.

/Authoritarian fascist, if you're American, you probably are one.

You weren't in before the usual talking point about no expectation of privacy in public, as if there is no difference between being in public and having a cop on every street corner 24 hours a day.


With enough funding there could be a cop on every street corner 24 hours a day. What basis would you argue that it's not OK?

If there were no cops anywhere it doesn't actually change what any laws are, it just reduces the likelihood of being caught. This is strictly a civil matter however, so your point obviously does not apply in the least.

Pay you farking car payment and you won't have to worry about getting your car repossessed.
 
2014-03-05 10:29:52 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: In before the defenders of the surveillance state.


State? This is private sector surveillance. That means it's freedom.
 
2014-03-05 10:40:20 AM
You can combat your paranoia with one of these.

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-03-05 10:49:16 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Take your best shot.

/hot
 
2014-03-05 11:04:27 AM

Pangea: You can combat your paranoia with one of these.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x268]


I've got a nice hitch mounted one that I'm sure has saved me from speed camera ticket or two.  Occasionally, I get paranoid that I'll get grief about it whenever cops are behind me, but so far. so good.  I figure my plate is still more readable than the folks who get new cars and stick the already barely legible temporary plate behind dark tinted or very sloped rear windows.  I don't see how that can be acceptable.
 
2014-03-05 11:06:20 AM

Pangea: With enough funding there could be a cop on every street corner 24 hours a day. What basis would you argue that it's not OK?


Because, while in your world, cops are 100% honest and trustworthy, this is not the case in the real world.

If you think (realize/know) that this ISN'T the case, you should already recognize the problem inherent with having a cop on every corner.

If you think having a cop on every corner wouldn't change the police force's attitude a bit, you're too delusional to reason with.
 
2014-03-05 11:15:45 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: In before the defenders of the surveillance state.


I think Pangea beat you with that pro-surveillance statement "There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public." Regarding privacy in public, the truth is that people have great expectations of privacy in public. We had much greater privacy before these technologies invaded the public space. Our privacy situation has changed, this isn't how it's always been and it is a choice we can vote on. It's ok to be bothered by these changes or not, but this is not "how it's always been".

Also the danger of these technologies is that it enables stalkers and job and loan discrimination. Surveillance companies regularly sell off personal information. Services like spokeo.com are some of the milder instances, but even with spokeo for like five dollars I could search by your online username, there is a good chance I will be able to tell where tell where you have lived, get your current address, your email, your phone and call you in about a minute more time then it takes to pay for their service.

I'm not going to do that, but why is that possible? Because not enough people  have voted against using technology that way. I think that is wrong and it should be illegal, but the technology is moving faster then the law. So what happens when this company sells off it's plate tracking info to a "stalker track your victim" or "employee background check" kind of website. It's predictable that they will sell off their info if there isn't a law against doing that.

What happens when your looking for a job and your potential employer sees you park at a friends house in a bad part of town, next to an Irish pub all day or you park at gun club or next to a gay bar? Or at the gay guns bar in the bad part of town? It might be a great parking spot, but now your interviewer "knows" you're a gay gun clubber or thinks you drink all day! Is it true? Doesn't matter, where you park can say a lot of private real and unreal things about you that normally in public you would expect was private. This tech violates those expectations and no doubt will result in problems for people.

Further, law enforcement is already having a field day tracking people and they will want their mitts on this data too. I see a lot of problems with this technology. People grew up with expectations of privacy in "public spaces" that has been taken away and I think we should vote on these issues and choose if this is a change we are ok with.
 
2014-03-05 11:20:26 AM

Pangea: They're only using information that can only be accessed with a human's eyes.

Should we also be outraged that someone can use a cellphone in order to report a stolen car?

There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public. That's sort of what being in public means.


Does that mean I can start taking upskirts in public places?
 
2014-03-05 11:32:39 AM

Pangea: They're only using information that can only be accessed with a human's eyes.

Should we also be outraged that someone can use a cellphone in order to report a stolen car?

There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public. That's sort of what being in public means.


Read Scalia's concurrence in Jones. The aggregation of data can be considered a search. When departments are cost limited this is not a concern, ie trailing a suspect. When you can collect information at little marginal cost, you can profile the behavior of a citizen that qualifies as a search.
 
2014-03-05 11:53:52 AM

grinding_journalist: Pangea: With enough funding there could be a cop on every street corner 24 hours a day. What basis would you argue that it's not OK?

Because, while in your world, cops are 100% honest and trustworthy, this is not the case in the real world.

If you think (realize/know) that this ISN'T the case, you should already recognize the problem inherent with having a cop on every corner.

If you think having a cop on every corner wouldn't change the police force's attitude a bit, you're too delusional to reason with.


You're taking more logical leaps as obvious truths than the maximum allowed for me to care that you think I am the delusional one.

You should go completely off the grid to keep yourself save from surveillance.

Have you ever noticed that Internet advertisements reflect your search criteria? THEY are on to you man!

Wake up sheeple!!
 
2014-03-05 11:55:24 AM

Creoena: Pangea: They're only using information that can only be accessed with a human's eyes.

Should we also be outraged that someone can use a cellphone in order to report a stolen car?

There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public. That's sort of what being in public means.

Does that mean I can start taking upskirts in public places?


Please do. Links are appreciated!
 
2014-03-05 11:58:27 AM
What really pisses me off isn't the intrusion of privacy the scanners represent, thought that also pisses me off. No, what really pisses me off is that whenever you see a story like this, and talk on banning them, they always intend to have an exception for law enforcement. Law enforcement should in almost all cases be required to obey the same laws that apply to citizens. Same restrictions on guns and magazine size, same rules for the use of force, same rules on using license plate scanners. There is still going to be some good ole boy corruption with cops getting breaks when caught breaking the law, but the least we can do is not enshrine it in the law itself. Law enforcement is supposed to be our fellow citizens, not our privileged betters.
 
2014-03-05 12:04:02 PM
I bet those cops have got SCMODS.
 
2014-03-05 12:08:06 PM
The problem isn't that they see it in public. It's that they're recording it and selling it to someone else.

I should at least be getting some of the money, I helped create that data.
 
2014-03-05 12:13:28 PM
I just mounted a laser diode in a small aluminum block license plate frame. It has to be a unfocused laser diode. a LED wont work. It's 980nm. Invisible to the human eye. completely safe to view from > 6 inches away from the plate as its a diffuse reflection. 100% unreadable to any digital camera. no matter how good their IR filtering is.
 
2014-03-05 12:17:40 PM

Pangea: They're only using information that can only be accessed with a human's eyes.

Should we also be outraged that someone can use a cellphone in order to report a stolen car?

There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public. That's sort of what being in public means.


So, you think there's no difference between being able to see something, and surveillance. Huh. That's all, just huh.
 
2014-03-05 12:48:24 PM

Pangea: grinding_journalist: Pangea: With enough funding there could be a cop on every street corner 24 hours a day. What basis would you argue that it's not OK?

Because, while in your world, cops are 100% honest and trustworthy, this is not the case in the real world.

If you think (realize/know) that this ISN'T the case, you should already recognize the problem inherent with having a cop on every corner.

If you think having a cop on every corner wouldn't change the police force's attitude a bit, you're too delusional to reason with.

You're taking more logical leaps as obvious truths than the maximum allowed for me to care that you think I am the delusional one.

You should go completely off the grid to keep yourself save from surveillance.

Have you ever noticed that Internet advertisements reflect your search criteria? THEY are on to you man!

Wake up sheeple!!


What you actually see internet ads?
 
2014-03-05 12:53:52 PM

steam_cannon: HotIgneous Intruder: In before the defenders of the surveillance state.

I think Pangea beat you with that pro-surveillance statement "There really shouldn't be expectation of privacy when you're out in public." Regarding privacy in public, the truth is that people have great expectations of privacy in public. We had much greater privacy before these technologies invaded the public space. Our privacy situation has changed, this isn't how it's always been and it is a choice we can vote on. It's ok to be bothered by these changes or not, but this is not "how it's always been".

Also the danger of these technologies is that it enables stalkers and job and loan discrimination. Surveillance companies regularly sell off personal information. Services like spokeo.com are some of the milder instances, but even with spokeo for like five dollars I could search by your online username, there is a good chance I will be able to tell where tell where you have lived, get your current address, your email, your phone and call you in about a minute more time then it takes to pay for their service.

I'm not going to do that, but why is that possible? Because not enough people  have voted against using technology that way. I think that is wrong and it should be illegal, but the technology is moving faster then the law. So what happens when this company sells off it's plate tracking info to a "stalker track your victim" or "employee background check" kind of website. It's predictable that they will sell off their info if there isn't a law against doing that.

What happens when your looking for a job and your potential employer sees you park at a friends house in a bad part of town, next to an Irish pub all day or you park at gun club or next to a gay bar? Or at the gay guns bar in the bad part of town? It might be a great parking spot, but now your interviewer "knows" you're a gay gun clubber or thinks you drink all day! Is it true? Doesn't matter, where you park can say a lot of privat ...


Well put.
There is a fundamental difference between being able to be seen in public, and broad, persistent and indiscriminate surveillance of the public.  Historically, all three of those factors have been largely constrained by resources - law wasn't that critical in restraining what couldn't be done.  Technology is overcoming the resources constraint and the law hasn't caught up yet - and there's alot of money and power that wants the law to side on the side of the surveillance state.

And remember, this data doesn't exist in isolation ... or at least it won't for long.  It will be collected and merged with cell site data, online tracking data, facial recognition hits, public records, consumer history etc.

If you don't think this will be abused, just look at the red-light camera fiasco.  Discouraging people from running red lights is a great thing - this technology could save lives.  But look how quickly it got corrupted - yellow light times are shortened to the point where it causes accidents all in the name of increasing revenue.  This will get abused also. I bet the police would like regular updates of license plates that spend alot of time in front of bars or liquor stores - DUI cases are even more lucrative then red light tickets.    How about cross-correlating license plates in front of newly legal MJ stores in Colorado against a database of military and federal government employees.  That could be pretty lucrative for a blackmailer.  Divorce lawyers might be interested in regular updates of "happily married" men who frequent the red light district.  This isn't even getting creative yet.
 
2014-03-05 01:53:50 PM
Found two interesting names in TFA, and I have concluded Issie Shait, and Kade Crockford should get married.
 
2014-03-05 05:49:37 PM
There's a sale on with tin hats right across Murica.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report