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

341–350 of 423 posts

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#341

Post by krapp »

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…

>Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians.

It is fully open and people can and do exactly that.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#342

Post by fluidcruft »

unethical_ban wrote: post #337
fluidcruft wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

idk how installing a GPS tracker is even remotely comparable to taking photographs of publicly visible license plates in plain view in public but please do go on refusing to engage facts.

Both allow cops to track people as they travel without a warrant.

People don't have any expectation that the license plate on their car cannot be seen by law enforcement.

People do not expect their phones to be feeding their locations to cops and they do not expect things hidden on them unknowingly to exist. But it really stretches believability that people have no idea that cops check license plate. Or that cops communicate with each other about license plates to coordinate searches or that cops have databases of license plates. Heck there's a whole trope in media that you need to swap license plates to hide from cops.

Next you're going to be telling us we need a warrant for an Amber alert.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#343

Post by solidsnack9000 »

krapp wrote: post #340
vzaliva wrote: post #339

Imagine all licence plates being small screens and periodically showing numbers derived from a private key issued by the DMV. As they change, vehicles could not be tracked without knowing the private key, yet the DMV can verify the ownership because they know one. I am not a crypto expert, and the actual scheme may be a bit more sophisticated, but you’ve got the idea.

That would be more expensive, as it requires electronics and infrastructure, the screens would be hacked and vandalized constantly, short out in bad weather, etc. It would be more robust just using some kind of transponder, but that might fall afoul of FCC rules, IDK. Also the cops would just get the private keys from the DMV anyway. It's all the same government.

Government agencies frequently keep each other in the dark, even when they are the same government -- and the DMV is not the same government as many of the agencies (in other states or at the federal level) that would want this data.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#344

Post by solidsnack9000 »

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…

The police officer can record and see anything they want; but I'm not sure what that admission changes. Hasn't that always been true?

A warrant is for things that other people who are not police wrote down (or otherwise recorded). If a cop had been somewhere and seen it, then they saw it; but in actual fact, they are not everywhere, and so the state wants to get people who were there to turn something over.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#345

Post by estearum »

fluidcruft wrote: post #342
unethical_ban wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both allow cops to track people as they travel without a warrant.

People don't have any expectation that the license plate on their car cannot be seen by law enforcement. People do not expect their phones to be feeding their locations to cops and they do not expect things hidden on them unknowingly to exist. But it really stretches believability that people have no idea that cops check license plate. Or that cops communicate with each other about license plates to coordinate search…

You should read SCOTUS opinions instead of forming beliefs based on media tropes, duh.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#346

Post by pibaker »

cmiles8 wrote: post #77
gruez wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a good argument against ALPRs because citizens can theoretically set up an ALPRs too.

True, but I’d imagine if a few techies in the community setup an open-ALPR network and started a website “where is the police chief and all his family vehicles .com” that the police department’s views towards the free and open use of such data without a warrant would change quite quickly. So long as that data was only collected on public streets it would be perfectly legal.

Local Techie Famous For "DIY Flock" Dead With Bullet Holes On the Back Of His Head after Traffic Stop. Police Chief Deems It Suicide And Calls For Better Mental Health Resources.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#347

Post by ryeights »

vzaliva wrote: post #339

Imagine all licence plates being small screens and periodically showing numbers derived from a private key issued by the DMV. As they change, vehicles could not be tracked without knowing the private key, yet the DMV can verify the ownership because they know one. I am not a crypto expert, and the actual scheme may be a bit more sophisticated, but you’ve got the idea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/us/flock-cameras-can-trac...

“In recent years, as artificial intelligence has advanced, Flock has added the ability to search for cars based on their make, type, color, or unique details, such as bumper stickers or visible damage.” So TOTP license plates is not enough.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#348

Post by aidenn0 »

krapp wrote: post #340
vzaliva wrote: post #339

Imagine all licence plates being small screens and periodically showing numbers derived from a private key issued by the DMV. As they change, vehicles could not be tracked without knowing the private key, yet the DMV can verify the ownership because they know one. I am not a crypto expert, and the actual scheme may be a bit more sophisticated, but you’ve got the idea.

That would be more expensive, as it requires electronics and infrastructure, the screens would be hacked and vandalized constantly, short out in bad weather, etc. It would be more robust just using some kind of transponder, but that might fall afoul of FCC rules, IDK. Also the cops would just get the private keys from the DMV anyway. It's all the same government.

FWIW, several states already offer electronic plates (targeted at companies with fleets to manage).

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#349

Post by krapp »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #343
krapp wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be more expensive, as it requires electronics and infrastructure, the screens would be hacked and vandalized constantly, short out in bad weather, etc. It would be more robust just using some kind of transponder, but that might fall afoul of FCC rules, IDK. Also the cops would just get the private keys from the DMV anyway. It's all the same government.

Government agencies frequently keep each other in the dark, even when they are the same government -- and the DMV is not the same government as many of the agencies (in other states or at the federal level) that would want this data.

>Government agencies frequently keep each other in the dark, even when they are the same government

I don't think that's been the case since 9/11. It's naive to assume the CIA, FBI and NSA don't have root access to every device and every account in existence, or couldn't get it if they wanted it, legally or otherwise. I don't think your local DMV is going to be the hard line keeping the feds from knocking at your door.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#350

Post by protocolture »

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…

LPR is in itself a very dangerous technology. I dont know why you think its sanitised. Its honestly barely less dangerous than facial rec.
Post reply on HN