111–120 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than this? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
That’s actually pretty solid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
You can easily keep license plate data much longer by simply stating, "we are using it as evidence". For what? "An on-going investigation."
Done. Now you have it for much longer than 60 days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too bad this didn't come up, when the supreme court was more liberal, now it'd surely be shot down. (applying the similar scenario to the license plates)
That was less than a month ago.
perhaps even more interesting, Trump appointee Gorsuch seemed to be saying that even more general data privacy could exist under the fourth amendment: ... it seems to me entirely possible a person's cell-site data could qualify as his papers or effects under existing law.
this offers a far better explanation than i can give: http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/22/scotus-rejects-warrantless...
I'm a little confused about the mall operator's incentive to do this. Are they using ALPR for their own security and voluntarily sharing the reads? Is the provider giving them a discount to do so or paying to place cameras or something?
The government will just ask. Security types crave the opportunity to do a favor for the cops, and voluntary cooperation is not a legal issue. I served on a jury where the police were able to gather footage covering like 14/24 hours of the defendants time from a variety of camera feeds (up to 40 I think). After torturing us with introducing dozens of these videos to build the timeline, the case was fucked up (and def…
Here's one called Vegas SafeCam: https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/VegasSafeCam.aspx
"You’ve purchased a home surveillance system and have registered your system with the LVMPD. Several weeks later, a Patrol officer comes to your door and informs you of a recent burglary in your neighborhood. The Patrol Officer has used the database for this program in their patrol car, and has gone to your residence for follow-up. The Patrol officer asks you if it would be possible for you to review your video for a suspicious person or vehicle between the listed times of the event."
The Las Vegas one isn't real-time, but I believe Chicago's might be. Then again, about 10 years ago, CPD was bragging about having 3,000 cameras around the city. It must be 300,000 by now.
Max Headroom wasn't campy sci-fi. It was a warning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So hole up in a cave because someone might be tracking you every time you leave the house? It's perfectly reasonable to require companies to tell us what data they're collecting and how it will be used.
>So hole up in a cave because someone might be tracking you every time you leave the house? Welcome to the late 20th century. Cat's out of the bag.
We have the capability to reverse societal trends when we as a collective find them to be antithetical to our morals. This is no different.
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…
“California malls” is too forgiving a headline. It’s one company, Irvine Company, a group with locations in the Bay Area [1]. They have phone numbers on their websites [2]. Reaching out to their retailers, particularly those with locations in Mexico, couldn’t hurt either. It might not be a bad idea to also compile a list of their retailers’ investor relations and Twitter accounts and tweet this article to them (here'…
Irvine Company is not just "one company", it's HUGE... it owns half of Orange County, Newport Beach, etc. From Wikipedia: > The Irvine Company develops suburban master-planned communities throughout central and southern Orange County, in addition to residential buildings in Santa Monica, Silicon Valley, and San Diego.[6] The company also owns and manages office buildings in Milpitas, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Downtown San…
To me the issue here is that this data is collected in the first place. It seems wrong to me that private corporations are tracking my every move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given this news, I'm going to contact some other large mall chains (e.g. Westfield), in the hopes that they'll confirm that they don't give out license plate data to third parties. I'll be interested to see how they respond.
They're not going to reply to you and even if they do it'll be a "we do not comment on our security practices".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s actually pretty solid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
How solid is it? You can easily keep license plate data much longer by simply stating, "we are using it as evidence". For what? "An on-going investigation." Done. Now you have it for much longer than 60 days.
You have to start somewhere.