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

ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#11

Post by calebio »

Zircom wrote: post #8
xhkkffbf wrote: post #2

[flagged]

The license plate itself isn’t the issue. The state want cars to have an easily visible identifier? Sure, whatever makes sense from a perspective of being able to identify a car and its likely driver at the moment when it's actively being used for a crime or for traffic enforcement. The problem is that this state mandated visible identifier is then used by them to constantly track where you go. So the question is do…

I think the question may instead be:

> do you have the right to not have [a private company] tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime?

And

> do you have the right for the government to not purchase that data from [a private company]?

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#12

Post by garyfirestorm »

calebio wrote: post #3

While Carpenter v. United States (2018) somewhat changed the rules regarding the "purchase" of third-party data in the context of an investigation, it seems like the ALPRs do not violate the 4th amendment the same way that the decision in Carpenter decided. Since ALPRs are effectively fixed in a geographic place with gaps and AFAIK do have relatively low retention periods (I need to double check this), they don't off…

A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. A banal traffic monitoring system watching for cars is different than systematically monitoring each individual’s movement even though it’s not very very precise.

If this were an app - Location sharing by default has been set to 25 miles, I’d prefer it to be OFF.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#13

Post by calebio »

garyfirestorm wrote: post #12
calebio wrote: post #3

While Carpenter v. United States (2018) somewhat changed the rules regarding the "purchase" of third-party data in the context of an investigation, it seems like the ALPRs do not violate the 4th amendment the same way that the decision in Carpenter decided. Since ALPRs are effectively fixed in a geographic place with gaps and AFAIK do have relatively low retention periods (I need to double check this), they don't off…

A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. A banal traffic monitoring system watching for cars is different than systematically monitoring each individual’s movement even though it’s not very very precise. If this were an app - Location sharing by…

> A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town.

You're not wrong that it's still tracking. Though, whether it's tracking or not isn't really the thing up for debate here.

In my head it's:

A) Whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a person or company when driving your car with a personally identifiable plate on a public street.

B) Is it your data that is being searched or is it the data of the company who owns the ALPR? Is it a violation of your rights for that data to be searched?

The decision in Carpenter is extremely narrow and doesn't cover things like cameras or non-targeted tower dumps.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

It's also similar to the ever growing network of toll road cameras and bridge/highway cameras that capture an image of each car + driver's face.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#14

Post by cwmoore »

fragmede wrote: post #9
xhkkffbf wrote: post #2

[flagged]

With a straight face, I expect that it is too expensive for the police department to hire a human to stand at every highway on ramp and offramp, and to write down every license plate of every car that drives past them, and then furthermore for it to be infeasible for them to pay a human to search those records and replay every place I've been, for funsies. If I'm Al Capone, that level of effort is warranted, but to b…

East Germany and others have made enduring attempts at the manual labor variety. I do not find any argument credible, in fact it’s purely malice, that promotes a legalistic path to deepening authoritarianism.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#15

Post by [deleted] »

calebio wrote: post #11
Zircom wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license plate itself isn’t the issue. The state want cars to have an easily visible identifier? Sure, whatever makes sense from a perspective of being able to identify a car and its likely driver at the moment when it's actively being used for a crime or for traffic enforcement. The problem is that this state mandated visible identifier is then used by them to constantly track where you go. So the question is do…

I think the question may instead be: > do you have the right to not have [a private company] tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime? And > do you have the right for the government to not purchase that data from [a private company]?

[deleted]

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#16

Post by [deleted] »

calebio wrote: post #13
garyfirestorm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. A banal traffic monitoring system watching for cars is different than systematically monitoring each individual’s movement even though it’s not very very precise. If this were an app - Location sharing by…

> A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. You're not wrong that it's still tracking. Though, whether it's tracking or not isn't really the thing up for debate here. In my head it's: A) Whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a…

[deleted]

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#17

Post by cwmoore »

calebio wrote: post #11
Zircom wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license plate itself isn’t the issue. The state want cars to have an easily visible identifier? Sure, whatever makes sense from a perspective of being able to identify a car and its likely driver at the moment when it's actively being used for a crime or for traffic enforcement. The problem is that this state mandated visible identifier is then used by them to constantly track where you go. So the question is do…

I think the question may instead be: > do you have the right to not have [a private company] tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime? And > do you have the right for the government to not purchase that data from [a private company]?

Yes, I think stalking is illegal for individuals, corporations, employees or members of government.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#18

Post by garyfirestorm »

calebio wrote: post #13
garyfirestorm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. A banal traffic monitoring system watching for cars is different than systematically monitoring each individual’s movement even though it’s not very very precise. If this were an app - Location sharing by…

> A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. You're not wrong that it's still tracking. Though, whether it's tracking or not isn't really the thing up for debate here. In my head it's: A) Whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a…

Isn’t tracking part of “search”? wouldn’t you need a warrant or court order to request my cellphone gps data? How is this tracking/search not contradictory to unreasonable search portion of the 4th amendment. The action of tracking and touching flock itself is violation of 4th amendment.

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#19

Post by calebio »

garyfirestorm wrote: post #18
calebio wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lower resolution tracking is still tracking though. Spatial resolution is low/fixed doesn’t change the fact that I was tagged using the personally identifiable plate and my movements were tracked across the town. You're not wrong that it's still tracking. Though, whether it's tracking or not isn't really the thing up for debate here. In my head it's: A) Whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from a…

Isn’t tracking part of “search”? wouldn’t you need a warrant or court order to request my cellphone gps data? How is this tracking/search not contradictory to unreasonable search portion of the 4th amendment. The action of tracking and touching flock itself is violation of 4th amendment.

No, it's not. You are not protected from a private company that owns ALPRs as part of the 4th amendment.

The government purchasing data from 3rd parties (the third-party doctrine) doesn't violate your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. You voluntarily gave the data to a 3rd party and the 3rd party voluntarily sold that data to the government.

The carve out is really only for phone GPS data (cell tower connection logs) as specified in Carpenter v. United States.

So just like you're not protected from AT&T selling your call logs to the government, you're not protected from Flock selling access to their images of your car (at this time).

Re: ACLU: Do Automatic License Plate Readers violate privacy under the 4th Amendment

#20

Post by calebio »

cwmoore wrote: post #17
calebio wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question may instead be: > do you have the right to not have [a private company] tracking your movements and keeping logs of everywhere you’ve been for months or years, especially when you’re not currently suspected of any crime? And > do you have the right for the government to not purchase that data from [a private company]?

Yes, I think stalking is illegal for individuals, corporations, employees or members of government.

Stalking has a specific definition that I'm not sure would apply here.

Your behavior on the internet is certainly tracked by corporations. Your phone's radio addresses were (are) tracked as you walk by things. None of that rises to the level of "stalking" as we commonly refer to it.

Post reply on HN