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

381–390 of 423 posts

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#381

Post by Forgeties79 »

jameshart wrote: post #379
Dylan16807 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a curious ‘small government’ instinct that wants government capabilities to be restricted from ever becoming efficient or scalable Efficiency would be great if it was used to save money. But surely you've heard of the Jevons paradox. This kind of cheap surveillance does not make the government smaller and it has all kinds of bad effects. > even though the population and economy and complexity of the world the…

YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is why so many outright fraudulent ads get shown by them. In the same industry we have Meta using AI to generate and display ads that even the advertiser hasn’t vetted. > vetting every video would not be reasonable even at a small scale business with the same business model. A small scale business like… a cable tv company? They certainly historicall…

Exactly. “We’re too big” is the most insane excuse. If I just get big enough I can say “nah the law doesn’t apply to me”? I’m not naïve I understand that’s kind of how the world works, but should be really be supporting this?

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#382

Post by solidsnack9000 »

krapp wrote: post #349
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doo…

The limited number of people who attract the CIA's attention have data privacy concerns that go far beyond license plate readers. Warrants are not (and never have been) a solution for that.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#383

Post by otterley »

estearum wrote: post #376
otterley wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions. It’s not very persuasive otherwise. These cases are highly nuanced. Also, you’re being kind of a dick. Knock it off.

> I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions... These cases are highly nuanced. That nuance is why it's worth reading the entire opinion. Anyway here you go: > GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. See, e.g…

Remember, though, that a concurrence is not controlling precedent.

The actual opinion in U.S. v. Jones hinges on the fact that "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information," and also stated "[t]his Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search."

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#384

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

Scion9066 wrote: post #269
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 syst…

Well that company has been collecting that info for all kinds of analyis for decades (even used pen and paper long long time ago) and its name rhymes with hall mart.

Just an FYI.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#385

Post by breakpointalpha »

judge2020 wrote: post #351
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…

Note that they already don't write down license plates. They use LPRs attached to their cars, and tend to be automatically running every plate immediately through the database, which tends to catch people without insurance or expired registration. Is the line automation? Or 24/7 operation? (genuinely)

Personally the line for me is a human police officer with reasonable judgement and accountability.

If an officer was standing next to every Flock camera in America, the public would be hyper aware of the situation we are now in.

Mass, warrantless, and perpetual surveillance is incompatible with liberty and unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

It has to be stopped, or we are doomed.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#386

Post by Dylan16807 »

jameshart wrote: post #379
Dylan16807 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a curious ‘small government’ instinct that wants government capabilities to be restricted from ever becoming efficient or scalable Efficiency would be great if it was used to save money. But surely you've heard of the Jevons paradox. This kind of cheap surveillance does not make the government smaller and it has all kinds of bad effects. > even though the population and economy and complexity of the world the…

YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve. That is why so many outright fraudulent ads get shown by them. In the same industry we have Meta using AI to generate and display ads that even the advertiser hasn’t vetted. > vetting every video would not be reasonable even at a small scale business with the same business model. A small scale business like… a cable tv company? They certainly historicall…

> YouTube absolutely claim not to be vetting every ad they serve.

That is a true statement that is very different from my claim that they could.

> A small scale business like… a cable tv company?

No, cable is a very different business model. If youtube only allowed business accounts worth millions of dollars it would get halfway there. And it would be the end of "you"tube.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#387

Post by estearum »

otterley wrote: post #383
estearum wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d like it if you provided relevant quotes from these opinions that support your assertions... These cases are highly nuanced. That nuance is why it's worth reading the entire opinion. Anyway here you go: > GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. See, e.g…

Remember, though, that a concurrence is not controlling precedent. The actual opinion in U.S. v. Jones hinges on the fact that "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information," and also stated "[t]his Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search."

Correct, and the controlling opinion remained ambivalent as to the question that fluidstack (or whatever) believes is so concretely obvious.

So the controlling opinion said: "we won't answer this question." The concurring opinion (signed by 5) said "fluidstack is wrong."

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#388

Post by zahlman »

snsr wrote: post #286
zahlman wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The large majority of police killings are definitionally not "murder", and have clear moral justification on broadly-accepted grounds.

[flagged]

Interesting response. Do your claims ever require evidence, or only those of people who disagree with you?

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#389

Post by zahlman »

DANmode wrote: post #312
zahlman wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no "hope" involved here. I'm talking about what the words actually mean.

Why not consider how they’re actually used in practice by law enforcement? Pretty big part of the conversation.

Because the entire point of my comment was to point out a logical fallacy, not to argue the matter at hand.

Re: License plate reader searches should require a warrant

#390

Post by otterley »

estearum wrote: post #387
otterley wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, though, that a concurrence is not controlling precedent. The actual opinion in U.S. v. Jones hinges on the fact that "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information," and also stated "[t]his Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search."

Correct, and the controlling opinion remained ambivalent as to the question that fluidstack (or whatever) believes is so concretely obvious. So the controlling opinion said: "we won't answer this question." The concurring opinion (signed by 5) said "fluidstack is wrong."

There were two concurring opinions in that case: One was signed by Justices Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. The other--the one whose quotes you cite--was Justice Sotomayor's alone.

There can't be a "concurring opinion" signed by five Justices. An opinion signed by five Justices is a majority, and would constitute the Opinion of the Court.

I think that the most we can say right now is that although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet.

The fact is that there hasn't been a case on point to answer the questions as to whether 1/ALPRs constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment (a threshold question that must be answered "yes" to proceed further), 2/whether use of the technology can be "reasonable" under any circumstances, and 3/whether there are any exceptions to the warrant requirement. We have a long way to go before we know what the law is on this technology. Remember, too, that the Fourth Amendment has only a "reasonableness" and a warrant requirement. It does not ban technologies for surveillance outright. (See, e.g., Kyllo v. U.S., where the use of thermal surveillance technology wasn't the issue in and of itself, but rather constituted a search necessitating a warrant.)

So how about you tone down the attitude a bit? You're arguing from shaky ground, and there are more constructive ways to contribute to this debate.

Post reply on HN