Live data from Hacker News

A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

techcrunch.com

31–40 of 190 posts

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#31

This article takes a distinctly negative tone towards this practice. What’s the problem here? License plate data is public information, it’s the same as if a person standing on the street saw your plate and told someone else. There should not be any expectation of privacy in regard to one’s license plate or the location of its sighting.

The US Supreme Court just made the distinction, when ruling that access to a cellular telephone carrier's location data for a particular subscriber required a warrant (and hence a showing of probable cause):

   The Government’s position fails to contend
   with the seismic shifts in digital technology
   that made possible the tracking of not only
   Carpenter’s location but also everyone else’s,
   not for a short period but for years and years.
   Sprint Corporation and its competitors are not
   your typical witnesses. Unlike the nosy neighbor
   who keeps an eye on comings and goings, they 
   are ever alert, and their memory is nearly
   infallible.
_Carpenter v. United States_, No. 16-402 (June 22, 2018) (Slip Op., at 15)

That's the difference, beyond simple public/private. It's not that the license plate display itself is private but storing the data forever and being nearly infallible amounts to an unreasonable intrusion on privacy when handed over to the government. Notably, the USSC in a 9-0 ruling from 2012 held that attaching a GPS tracker to a car also required a warrant. _United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#32
The headline is completely misleading and actually understated the problem. One California mall developer is sharing their license plate data with one third party company which may or may not be sharing this data with other parties. This is worse because

1) companies have gotten so big that one company can control a huge number of shopping malls

2) huge-scale data collection and transmission is so easy/cheap that one decision by one person can affect the privacy of hundreds of thousands of people

3) the “service” model of software delivery makes it much harder to know what is or isn’t being done with the data that you’re generating by using that software

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#33
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when you rip kids from parents seeking asylum, and then can't even get them back to their parents in a timely manner, yeah, people get upset.

Maybe don't try to cross the border illegaly then? Seems like a valid deterrent to me.

> don't try to cross the border illegaly then?

I'm an American citizen. I don't like that my visits to and from a mall being automatically collected by private company for a federal agency with domestic policing capabilities. One can construct a Fourth Amendment case critical of this practice that is completely agnostic towards the illegal immigration debate.

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#34

This article takes a distinctly negative tone towards this practice. What’s the problem here? License plate data is public information, it’s the same as if a person standing on the street saw your plate and told someone else. There should not be any expectation of privacy in regard to one’s license plate or the location of its sighting.

   it’s the same as if a person standing on the street saw your plate and told someone else. 
It really isn't though, is it? There is a bunch of policy and law here that remains to be worked out, but large scale ubiquitous surveillance and storage of your public "footprint" is really not the same thing as a person having been able in the past to follow you around and take notes.

This is one of the areas where scaling really matters, and you can do many things with these sort of databases that were simply intractable before. So I find the conceit that it is "just the same" to be inept.

I don't know where the courts and legislators are eventually going to arrive at on this, but if it is as cut and dried as you suggest then you can look forward to a near future where anyone who cares to can buy a detailed dossier on all of your movements for the last decade, say, with known and inferred contacts, assets, etc. It probably won't be very expensive.

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#35
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when you rip kids from parents seeking asylum, and then can't even get them back to their parents in a timely manner, yeah, people get upset.

Maybe don't try to cross the border illegaly then? Seems like a valid deterrent to me.

You have no clue what you're talking about, you're just parroting a line you've been fed.

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#36

This article takes a distinctly negative tone towards this practice. What’s the problem here? License plate data is public information, it’s the same as if a person standing on the street saw your plate and told someone else. There should not be any expectation of privacy in regard to one’s license plate or the location of its sighting.

> There should not be any expectation of privacy in regard to one’s license plate or the location of its sighting The Supreme Court has continuously recognized the difference between manual and sustained, remote and automated tracking, even in public spaces [1]. The "seismic shifts in digital technology" we are presently undergoing require vigilance to be maintained in respect of the Bill of Rights. [1] http://www.sc…

ALPR is not manual or sustained. It's a one-time photo of a vehicle at a specific location & time.

The DPPA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_...] already restricts who has the ability to convert from plate to actual personal information.

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#37
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, ask them to confirm that they don't track this stuff in the first place.

> ask them to confirm that they don't track this stuff in the first place I could see a reasonable case being made for collecting these data, storing them for a few weeks, and then deleting them, to protect against thieves. The problem here is that for the government to collect these data, they would need to follow certain processes. A private actor who isn't following those processes is placing those data with the g…

This seems to be the latest trick. The same thing was happening with the cell phone location data. We should start referring to this as "data laundering".

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#38
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when you rip kids from parents seeking asylum, and then can't even get them back to their parents in a timely manner, yeah, people get upset.

Maybe don't try to cross the border illegaly then? Seems like a valid deterrent to me.

Indeed. While we’re at it, let’s institute summary execution for thieves. It’s bound to reduce crime.

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#39

This article takes a distinctly negative tone towards this practice. What’s the problem here? License plate data is public information, it’s the same as if a person standing on the street saw your plate and told someone else. There should not be any expectation of privacy in regard to one’s license plate or the location of its sighting.

Do you consider your location data to be private? If you are out in public all day then all it takes is every business everywhere using facial recognition and conglomerating their results together to monitor your position throughout the entire day. Are you comfortable with that?

There are boundaries between reasonable use of nominally public information and the normal expectation of some degree of privacy outside the home.

Re: A California mall operator is sharing license plate tracking data with ICE

#40
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when you rip kids from parents seeking asylum, and then can't even get them back to their parents in a timely manner, yeah, people get upset.

Maybe don't try to cross the border illegaly then? Seems like a valid deterrent to me.

I thought I saw a turnip truck drive by. Did you fall off?
Post reply on HN