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

261–270 of 423 posts

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#261

Post by zahlman »

delichon wrote: post #14

This is a hole in the Constitution that would be better patched, at least with statute, better with an amendment. The fourth amendment says The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects... Who is "their" here? In terms of property rights it's the people who own those digital "papers". The individuals who that data is about do no maintain or control that data, and could not destroy…

Have fun writing a legal definition that accomplishes what you want but doesn't bar the police from creating a composite sketch from witness descriptions.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#262

Post by Tostino »

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #247
LeonKnst wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the operative difference here is that in the case of the little league photography, the cameras are not fixed in place, are temporary, and are not set up with the intent to capture the identity and actions of everyone in the background. Fixed-installation cameras are permanent, do attempt to capture all possible subjects in its frame, and have an alternate, obvious intent to identify them all. I don't think a…

I don't really care about the fixed vs mobile distinction. Police could just use a drone swarm that automatically charges if it were ruled fixed installs were illegal.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#263

Post by TaLiTr »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #256
TaLiTr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it OK to install a GPS tracker on your car if you only drive on public roads? You seem to think that would not compromise your privacy in any way.

Every car I have owned in the last decade has a GPS tracker built in and I carry one in my pocket and on my wrist. I don’t believe any warrant is required for police to follow someone, so they wouldn’t even need the tracker!

> I don’t believe any warrant is required for police to follow someone, so they wouldn’t even need the tracker!

Interesting how you reframe that, because the police would absolutely need a warrant to put a GPS tracker in your car.

This kinda proves everyone's point about this sort of thing, an officer following you is clearly different from the omnipresent surveillance dragnet enabled by Flock cameras.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#264

Post by DANmode »

zahlman wrote: post #257
rileymat2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody wants to limit the police's ability to investigate crimes. This is not true of privacy advocates, they do want to limit the ability to fish for circumstantial evidence that targets innocent people and causes suspicion.

This is non-sequitur. "Investigating crimes" entails knowledge that a crime has actually occurred, and deliberately seeking information specifically related to that crime; "fishing for circumstantial evidence" does not.

You would hope.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#265

Post by estearum »

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?

This is actually not how the law works. Nice try though!

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#266

Post by DANmode »

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?

I know whole States of them.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#267

Post by estearum »

dnautics wrote: post #233
Xirdus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about many people vs. few people. It's about a single person doing little with a lot of effort vs. a single person doing an enormous amount with minimal effort.

that is not the case. It is not about effort: The court has ruled that single point of time monitoring is fine, but continuous monitoring (a covertly placed gps tracker, e.g.) is a violation of privacy.

Neither of you are correct.

It's about how costly (in time, energy, money) is it to build how complete of a picture based on what level of prior suspicion?

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#268

Post by DANmode »

unselect5917 wrote: post #259
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…

>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. A COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER MAKE A MANAGEMENT DECISION -IBM…

Also, a computer cannot be the initial entity to bring charges of a crime - in many jurisdictions.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#269

Post by Scion9066 »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #243
Scion9066 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would be very interested to see how these laws deal with camera systems that do not do ALPR. At work, we had a system that would scrape offline video and pull faces, plates, etc. and identify them and that system is over 15 years old. No AI, no ALPR.

Then depending on the state's definition of ALPR, your work's use of that system would probably be covered by their laws. They don't necessarily require AI to do the analysis or the camera to do the work by itself. There seems to be some standardization of language with many states though:

Arkansas': https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2117... > "Automatic license plate reader system" means a system of one (1) or more mobile or fixed automated high-speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer-readable data;

Maine's: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-12/subtitle-2/ch... > "automated license plate recognition system" means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration plates into computer-readable data.

Vermont: https://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/title-23/chapter-15/sec... > “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration number plates into computer-readable data.

California's: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/... > “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a searchable computerized database resulting from the operation of one or more mobile or fixed cameras combined with computer algorithms to read and convert images of registration plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#270

Post by estearum »

LPisGood wrote: post #72
WarmWash wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, now rigidly define scale...

You don’t need to do that, actually. The legal system in the United States is highly capable of sussing out descriptions like “undue or unreasonable”.

Watch out, you're gonna break these programmers' brains.
Post reply on HN