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

License plate reader searches should require a warrant

andrewpwheeler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 423 posts

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#151

Post by lokar »

speak_plainly wrote: post #68

A license plate is already publicly displayed information (and is in most jurisdictions not private property), and you're operating in a public space. I know it's unpopular but I went from not supporting these sorts of systems to embracing them after seeing the positive effects in China. For crimes that depend on anonymity, theft, assault, hit-and-runs, vandalism, illegal parking, etc., surveillance changes the calcu…

The idea that these are needed, and deployed to address a crime problem is false. For example, Irvine, CA has been one of the safest large cites in the US for decades.

Why did they need flock?

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#152

Post by thaumaturgy »

wiseleo wrote: post #116
malwrar wrote: post #2

It frustrates me when people call them license plate readers. I guess you need to call them something, but they are general-purpose internet connected cameras. They will do whatever their firmware tells them to do, and could be reprogrammed at any time by anyone with access. No one expected doorbell cameras to join a mass surveillance network, but later the manufacturers added that feature. Why do we treat these came…

I always define them as "Remotely managed, field-upgradeable, multi-interconnected computing devices with full spectrum cameras and other sensory capabilities. Information is monitored in real-time by increasingly capable AI technology. They have edge AI capability for intelligent classification. They can be upgraded without announcement at any time. They can be replaced in the field with higher capabilities at any t…

That's cute and technically accurate but doesn't help when having conversations with the public.

"Warrantless mass surveillance technology" creates a category into which these and similar devices can be aggregated together where people's concerns tend to be about the same.

That phrase was suggested by a local chief of police while we were having discussions on policy.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#153

Post by Scion9066 »

dave78 wrote: post #121
cmiles8 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will generally deny you access, but they will access it freely themselves despite this being data collected on public streets. That’s the disparity at issue. However there’s no law from you putting up your own camera, pointing it at a public street and publishing the details of every car that drives past and highlighting any interesting once’s, like the mayor, police chief, etc. I suspect when there’s been a few…

> That’s the disparity at issue. However there’s no law from you putting up your own camera, pointing it at a public street and publishing the details of every car that drives past and highlighting any interesting once’s, like the mayor, police chief, etc. Yes, and I keep thinking an organized, crowd-sourced effort like people do for capturing ADSB data or weather stations would be tempting. Setting up the hardware w…

A number of states already have laws preventing individuals from setting up ALPR. I can't image state or government officials that don't lready have those restrictions in place would allow the public to set up tracking of their movements for very long if someone did try to set up something crowd-sourced or easily searchable.

e.g.:

Arkansas: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-12/subtitle-2/ch... > Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, it is unlawful for an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the State of Arkansas, its agencies, and political subdivisions to use an automatic license plate reader system.

Maine: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2117... > Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a person may not use an automated license plate recognition system.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#154

Post by [deleted] »

cmiles8 wrote: post #3

Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This middle ground that municipalities try to carve out where it’s fully open to police without a warrant but not subject to FOIL laws doesn’t appear tenable for much longer. There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear p…

[deleted]

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#155

Post by kotaKat »

funny question I have to pose now because I haven't thought about it yet in all the ALPR discussions and the like.

There are civilian enterprise uses of ALPR. Where do they fall in this? I don't even mean for mass data collection or even for parking enforcement. I'm thinking of like various car washes where they offer monthly memberships and their car wash portal system has plate recognition to tie your membership to your car. Or other enterprise access control applications where the ALPR pops the gates open instead of RFID tags.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#156

Post by nkrisc »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #6
cmiles8 wrote: post #3

Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This middle ground that municipalities try to carve out where it’s fully open to police without a warrant but not subject to FOIL laws doesn’t appear tenable for much longer. There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear p…

I don't understand why a police cruiser can sit in a public space (or even a private one) and write down licence plates and descriptions of passers-by with pen and paper, or record everything around them with dashcams and bodycams for later use, but when it comes to cameras on a pole this would require a warrant. Going back through police officers' notes or cruiser dash cam videos and tracking a car's movements by it…

They can. That’s fine, let them do that.

The difference in scale is so great that it becomes the meaningful, defining factor.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#157

Post by pixl97 »

WarmWash wrote: post #127
devin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to rigidly define scale to demonstrate at a common sense level that there is a major difference between a couple cops writing down your license plate and a nationwide network of them entering your plate into a searchable ledger.

...so we only have 5 cameras, one at each entrance to our town. Five cameras is less than what the number of police on duty are using.

Given that in the majority of places police are typically busy doing things like writing speeding tickets and going on calls that leaves a lot less time for them to sit still for an 8 hour shift and record every single plate they can see 24/7/365. Those 5 cameras would represent 15 to 20 officers which is a huge taskforce no matter how large the department.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#158

Post by LeonKnst »

mlsu wrote: post #148
WarmWash wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These cameras are in public, where expectation of privacy has been ruled against a zillion times. Go against this, and filming your kids baseball game becomes a legal nightmare.

It seems very easy. Always on spy camera installed for the express purpose of dragnet surveillance? Illegal. Film child’s baseball game? Legal. I find this attitude I find kind of tiring. Gosh it’s just sooo hard to figure out the difference between Flock Safety and Big Bill’s Little League Sports Photography. It’s actually very straightforward to determine the difference between these two things. So easy, an idiot c…

While I do agree it's tiring and agree with your point I think the issue is finding the exact point to draw the line. It's easy to differentiate the two ends.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#159

Post by autoexec »

fluidcruft wrote: post #126
kentm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why a police cruiser can sit in a public space (or even a private one) and write down licence plates and descriptions of passers-by with pen and paper, or record everything around them with dashcams and bodycams for later use, but when it comes to cameras on a pole this would require a warrant. Scale actually matters. Things that are generally OK at a small scale become problematic at larger scal…

Scale is more about efficiency and cost, though. Plenty of people want more policemen patrolling the streets.

Spying on the American public shouldn't be cheap or efficient. We shouldn't abandon our freedom to make the fearful feel better.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#160

Post by gchamonlive »

cmiles8 wrote: post #3

Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This middle ground that municipalities try to carve out where it’s fully open to police without a warrant but not subject to FOIL laws doesn’t appear tenable for much longer. There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear p…

It needs to be both open and closed by warrant. Cars aren't people so you aren't necessarily tracking whoever is riding that car, which can be done protecting the identity of the driver, but if the car is being watched as part of a larger investigation against an individual, then it needs a warrant.
Post reply on HN