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

171–180 of 423 posts

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#171

Post by JK-Swizzle »

eatsyourtacos wrote: post #44
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…

But then scale doesn't actually matter. If you have a problem with something that "everyone does" then you should have a problem with something only a few people do.

By my understanding, this would be similar to the situation with marketing calls. In the US is it legal for a human to call anyone and market to them. But due to issues from scale, it is illegal for either a program to make the call, or a prerecorded message to be played.

To me, that is precedent in US law that computerized methods of executing human tasks do not fall under the same rules.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#172

Post by Scion9066 »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #103
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…

There's nothing stopping you from buying an LPR and publishing the data. Also, with a PI license, you (might) be able to access the nationwide Nlets LPR Index. https://nlets.org/resources/blog/nlets-news-our-nationwide-l...

There are actually laws against individuals doing this in a number of states.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#173

Post by gs17 »

ewhanley wrote: post #50
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #6

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. Going back through police officers' notes or cruiser dash cam videos and tracking a car's movements by it…

Would you feel similarly if microphones were installed everywhere to record all public conversations for analysis via algorithms? Is that the same as police officers listening to conversation in a public space and taking notes?

That is unfortunately already sort of a thing. A ShotSpotter-recorded conversation was already used as evidence at least twice.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#174

Post by tshaddox »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #131
smalltorch wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a good way to look at it. You would be in a constant state of alarm if the poles were officers.

There are police and security all over popular areas, nobody is alarmed. I’m guessing the average person feels safer. Would airports really feel safer without cameras and security?

Again, it's about degree. And no, there absolutely is not a universal feeling of calm and security in places with conspicuous police presence.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#175

Post by fluidcruft »

autoexec wrote: post #159
fluidcruft wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People either have privacy in public or they do not, but I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads. What freedom are you talking about?

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#177

Post by edot »

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…

Yeah China is not dystopian at all! They don’t keep millions of people in open air prisons, they don’t keep track of people’s compliance with the government, they don’t support brutal dictatorships, and they definitely don’t pass any laws that would enable them to use their surveillance technology to suppress democratic behavior!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/04/world/asia/xi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit_system

https://www.csis.org/analysis/old-friends-new-calculations-r...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hong_Kong_national_securi...

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#178

Post by john-h-k »

smalltorch wrote: post #80

Monetization of public data for private profit is the heart of my qualms. Why should it be possible for my bits be scooped up and sold for profit against my will.

None of it is against your will. You have no obligation to own a car or drive. If you want to use the _shared_ resource that is public roads, funded by everyone, you have to agree to certain terms (eg a license, insurance).

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#179

Post by drtz »

neodymiumphish wrote: post #46
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #6

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. Going back through police officers' notes or cruiser dash cam videos and tracking a car's movements by it…

Former law enforcement officer here. I can say that when we conducted surveillance, we weren't allowed to use equipment that wasn't common for normal people to use. So for example, I couldn't use some sort of long-distance microphone to overhear a conversation between two people in public because a normal person wouldn't have that same type of technology. I think this applies in this context to say that a cop just sc…

I think the issue of what your average citizen can or cannot do is a relatively minor.

The bigger problem is law enforcement's use of private business as end-around to dodge 4th amendment.

Google and Apple, Verizon and AT&T, auto manufacturers, Flock, and every other business that scoops up our data has a trove of information that would be unquestionably illegal for law enforcement to collect directly due to 4th amendment protections against government mass surveillance. So, instead, the businesses conduct the mass surveillance and then law enforcement gets to access that information -- either with a warrant as is the case for Google and Apple, or with some sort agreement as with Flock.

Businesses (or individuals) that deliver surveillance data to the government, compelled by warrant or otherwise, should be subject to the same constitutional restrictions as the government itself.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#180

Post by autoexec »

fluidcruft wrote: post #175
autoexec wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People either have privacy in public or they do not, but I don't know anyone who seriously claims that there's an expectation of privacy on public roads. What freedom are you talking about?

> People either have privacy in public or they do not

Thankfully, the law isn't as overly simplistic and black and white as that. It'd be very stupid if it were. We have the ability maintain a general principal like "there's no expectation to privacy in public" and still prohibit certain things that are deemed harmful, like taking upskirt photos of people while they are in public spaces.

Post reply on HN