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

Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#41

Post by JosephHatfield »

tonywebster wrote: post #9

The other problem is that state laws aren't keeping up with law enforcement technology. FOIA-similar laws in Minnesota meant that every ALPR-captured license plate was public information, which I requested to prove a point. I got back 2.1 million license plates (+ timestamp and coordinates) on a USB stick. Without strong policies and laws, this data is ripe for abuse -- domestic abuse victims and stalking where someo…

The ACLU report appears to claim that Minnesota is actually one of the few states that keep recording plate data for a maximum of 48 hours. Was that a recent result of this disclosure? See the callout on the map at http://www.aclu.org/alpr

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#42

Post by yen223 »

beedogs wrote: post #21
jlgreco wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the argument usually heard for the government doing it is "they've always been able to watch where you go in public" . I suspect that somehow would not fly if it were reversed. It's an interesting idea. Thanks to smartphones, the people have more cameras than their governments. The governments however have more targets.

Think of how quickly you'd end up in handcuffs if you created a website which tracked every NYPD vehicle in real-time. The laws apply to us, not them.

Some police scanners are open to the public, and I don't think anyone ended up in handcuffs for listening in.

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#43

Post by victorf »

cortesoft wrote: post #25

I have a personal experience with the harm that ubiquitous recording of location data can bring, even when you don't do anything wrong. When I was in college, I was called to the police station and accused of breaking a glass door in the dorms. I knew NOTHING about this. I told the police I knew nothing about the event, but they continued to press me. They asked me details about where I was that night (many weeks pri…

I had a similar thing happen, I was the last person on security footage before someone discovered vandalism.

You wouldn't have been guilty of perjury, maybe obstruction of justice. But I think your overall point is good, they will use data against you even though you were innocent and answering questions with good intentions.

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#45

Post by knowaveragejoe »

diminoten wrote: post #38

Can someone explain why your public movements should now be private? And when someone brings up the "pseudo-anonymity of the crowd", can you accompany that with a legal precedent for such a claim? Who actually came up with the "I'm acting privately in public" thing in the first place?

Yeah. If you don't like the prospect that some random person can know the intimate details of your , you might as well just abstain from the services and institutions that make anything remotely like a modern standard of living possible. It's a fair tradeoff.

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#46

Post by Wingman4l7 »

uptown wrote: post #40
Daishiman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the point when they started asking about stuff you didn't know about I would have invoked my right to a lawyer.

...which now means you need to spend money to protect yourself against a situation where you've done nothing wrong.

A lawyer might be provided pro bono -- but I completely agree with the point you're trying to make.

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#47

Post by Wingman4l7 »

cortesoft wrote: post #37
Daishiman wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the point when they started asking about stuff you didn't know about I would have invoked my right to a lawyer.

Yes... as I said, I know much better now. Of course, invoking my right to a lawyer may have prolonged my experience. Whether the increased risk of being in trouble by talking was greater than the increased time to resolve the incident if I requested a lawyer would have been a tough call to make.

Not to mention the whole "oh, you're asking for a lawyer, an innocent person would just talk to us, you must be our guy" bit.

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#49

Post by Wingman4l7 »

yen223 wrote: post #42
beedogs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of how quickly you'd end up in handcuffs if you created a website which tracked every NYPD vehicle in real-time. The laws apply to us, not them.

Some police scanners are open to the public, and I don't think anyone ended up in handcuffs for listening in.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a law on the books against it. No one would bother invoking it in a criminal prosecution unless they were really gunning for someone and they couldn't find anything else that would stick.

Re: Police Documents on License Plate Scanners Reveal Mass Tracking

#50

Post by bigiain »

rayiner wrote: post #26
anigbrowl wrote: post #24

From user qz10 (who seems to have been hellbanned absed on IP): It should be no surprise that this is happening. Give anyone unlimited surveillance power and it will always be abused. I live in a western EU country and have a friend in law enforcement. Last year, he brought me to see our city's traffic surveillance 'control room'. Almost every street corner and traffic junction here has a pole-mounted police camera t…

I think as a practical matter, expecting police to stay stuck in the 20th century is futile. The public will never strongly oppose that kind of technology when they themselves are wearing google glass everywhere. The fear of this sort of thing depends on being suspicious and wary of the police, and people aren't. My wife thinks I'm crazy when I rant about cops, but as a practical matter she has no reason to be skepti…

This is why I'm seriously of the opinion that surveillance data should be regulated somewhat along the lines of HIPPA or PCI rules.

Storing a weeks worth of traffic camera data and allowing to be misused should result in a demotion, a small fine, and a personal civil liability towards people who've been affected by the misuse. Signing off on storing years worth of ALPR/surveillance-camera records and having _that_ misused or exposed should be a career ending and company destroying event.

Collect that sort of data if you think it's of sufficient "value" - but make sure everyone is aware of the risks and the magnitude of the penalties of being "careless" with other people's personally identifying data.

Post reply on HN