Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 21 posts

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#3

Post by calebio »

While Carpenter v. United States (2018) somewhat changed the rules regarding the "purchase" of third-party data in the context of an investigation, it seems like the ALPRs do not violate the 4th amendment the same way that the decision in Carpenter decided.

Since ALPRs are effectively fixed in a geographic place with gaps and AFAIK do have relatively low retention periods (I need to double check this), they don't offer the same "whole person movement" data that a phone would when described in Carpenter.

Will be interesting to see how this goes, and I'm sure ALPR density may play a part in it, but for now I don't think it violates someone's privacy under the 4th amendment.

This debate also ties heavily into one around the surveillance network created via camera networks like Ring.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#4

Post by cwmoore »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #2

[flagged]

Depends a lot on whether the applied definitions of “expect” and “privacy” are meaningful, as well as on effects that were hidden for 100 years before new capabilities arose. Machine guns are mostly illegal.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#6

Post by cwmoore »

calebio wrote: post #3

While Carpenter v. United States (2018) somewhat changed the rules regarding the "purchase" of third-party data in the context of an investigation, it seems like the ALPRs do not violate the 4th amendment the same way that the decision in Carpenter decided. Since ALPRs are effectively fixed in a geographic place with gaps and AFAIK do have relatively low retention periods (I need to double check this), they don't off…

The “low-retention period” can be trivially extended, but likely not in your favor.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#7

Post by StatsAreFun »

calebio wrote: post #3

While Carpenter v. United States (2018) somewhat changed the rules regarding the "purchase" of third-party data in the context of an investigation, it seems like the ALPRs do not violate the 4th amendment the same way that the decision in Carpenter decided. Since ALPRs are effectively fixed in a geographic place with gaps and AFAIK do have relatively low retention periods (I need to double check this), they don't off…

That's a great point regarding other camera networks like Ring. I'm not sure which ones bother me more.. probably Ring but it's close. Seems like we can't escape being surveilled 24/7 everywhere we go. :(

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#8

Post by Zircom »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #2

[flagged]

The license plate itself isn’t the issue. The state want cars to have an easily visible identifier? Sure, whatever makes sense from a perspective of being able to identify a car and its likely driver at the moment when it's actively being used for a crime or for traffic enforcement.

The problem is that this state mandated visible identifier is then used by them to constantly track where you go. So the question is do you have the right to not have the government tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime?

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#9

Post by fragmede »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #2

[flagged]

With a straight face, I expect that it is too expensive for the police department to hire a human to stand at every highway on ramp and offramp, and to write down every license plate of every car that drives past them, and then furthermore for it to be infeasible for them to pay a human to search those records and replay every place I've been, for funsies. If I'm Al Capone, that level of effort is warranted, but to be able to do that for everybody and backdated too? Yeah, not OK.

Historically, it has not been possible to do that. That technology makes it possible for that to be possible should be balanced with the fact that it wasn't remotely practical.

Post reply on HN