OT: LPR, Law Enforcement and Personal Freedom

[RU4Real]

Okay - so first of all, I posted this here and not on the CE board because I'm genuinely interested in what people think on this topic and I'm hoping (fingers crossed) that we can have a simple discussion on the pros & cons without the usual suspects interjecting their most learned and erudite proclamations regarding who sucks and who has ruined the country.

This is an article from the Washington Post this morning about some little fuss over a Philly PD vehicle equipped with an LPR system and sporting a "Google Maps" window sticker. The article suggests some chicanery involved in trying to "disguise" said vehicle as to conceal its actual purpose.

The article is a stretch and conspiracies are unlikely regarding this particular vehicle, because in this day and age the overwhelming majority of law enforcement vehicles are equipped with LPR systems.

For those who don't know, LPR stands for "License Plate Reader". It's a relatively simple system of specialized cameras which scan traffic and pick out license plates. It runs them through an OCR (Optical Character Reader) process to interpret the plate number and then compares the data against various "hot lists" - stolen cars, vehicles connected with crimes, wanted individuals, etc.

Sounds great, on the surface.

What most people don't know is that local & state law enforcement agencies are working closely with the federal government to aggregate and catalog this data so that it becomes possible to track vehicles in real time and to look back through time and show the movements of any given vehicle. In essence, this system has become yet another component of Big Brother.

I'm interested in lucid, intelligent feedback regarding how people feel about that.

 

[Knight Shift]

Everything in Philadelphia sucks! Especially the Phillies, so this must suck too? o_O

On one hand, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you care why big brother is watching you? On the other hand, I can see the criminal lawyers trotting out all sorts of arguments against this type of "surveillance." I am somewhat indifferent because I have nothing to hide. I would become less indifferent if I found my name/car on a "list" because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time by coincidence. :grimace:

 

[RUScrew85]

Everything in Philadelphia sucks! Especially the Phillies, so this must suck too? o_O

On one hand, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you care why big brother is watching you? On the other hand, I can see the criminal lawyers trotting out all sorts of arguments against this type of "surveillance." I am somewhat indifferent because I have nothing to hide. I would become less indifferent if I found my name/car on a "list" because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time by coincidence. :grimace:

Because you are a free individual and not subject to constant state surveillance. It amazes me how little attention is paid to basic civil rights by people who make this statement. May your chains rest lightly...

 

[RU4Real]

Everything in Philadelphia sucks! Especially the Phillies, so this must suck too? o_O

On one hand, if you don't have anything to hide, why should you care why big brother is watching you? On the other hand, I can see the criminal lawyers trotting out all sorts of arguments against this type of "surveillance." I am somewhat indifferent because I have nothing to hide. I would become less indifferent if I found my name/car on a "list" because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time by coincidence. :grimace:

What would your reaction be if, down the road, DHS decided that there was an unusually high correlation between people who attended Jimmy Buffett concerts and drug money being funneled to ISIS? And, in the interest of investigating that relationship more closely, it was decided that everyone who was cataloged as having once driven to a Jimmy Buffett concert should be put on a list of people who may be involved in such terror-related activities?

Purely hypothetical, of course - but for the purposes of this exercise let's assume you're a Parrothead.

 

[RU205]

What I find interesting is the government puts money and resources behind this type of technology to track people but they don't do the same for the 911 system to help people. If anyone watch the 911 segment on John Oliver you will see that 911 is working off of old technology which doesn't always work.

 

[Knight Shift]

What would your reaction be if, down the road, DHS decided that there was an unusually high correlation between people who attended Jimmy Buffett concerts and drug money being funneled to ISIS? And, in the interest of investigating that relationship more closely, it was decided that everyone who was cataloged as having once driven to a Jimmy Buffett concert should be put on a list of people who may be involved in such terror-related activities?

Purely hypothetical, of course - but for the purposes of this exercise let's assume you're a Parrothead.

I'd have no problem with that. I hate Jimmy Buffett music and his old hippie fans. Round 'em up and lock 'em up. And same goes for Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift fans--the whole annoying lot of them. That's why I like going to see punk and metal bands that are under the radar in clubs. They will never be able to track my whereabouts. [winking]

 

[RU4Real]

What I find interesting is the government puts money and resources behind this type of technology to track people but they don't do the same for the 911 system to help people. If anyone watch the 911 segment on John Oliver you will see that 911 is working off of old technology which doesn't always work.

I'm not sure what you mean. Most 911 systems have been "E911" for many years now.

 

[RU205]

I'm not sure what you mean. Most 911 systems have been "E911" for many years now.

Please watch and let me know if this segment is accurate ?? Maybe it's outdated info??

 

[oldman87]

This is why I use stolen plates when I go to concerts.

 

[RUSONIC]

When the technology helps solve or prevent a crime, or finds a missing kid I am for it. When It gets me in trouble then I am against it. Listen, we have given up our rights of privacy a long time ago, between cell phones and video cameras in every room and corner, you are always being recorded.

 

[UMRU]

One of the problems with any "big data" project is that there is an unavoidable error rate. Even if the error rate seems acceptable (say 0.01%; so 99.99% accurate), if you collect only 1 million data points (license plates, in this case), 100 people might be errantly targeted as nefarious and subjected to additional investigation. All of a sudden the error you made on your taxes three years ago leads to the discovery of an unpaid toll in Florida, which leads to the discovery of a gap in your car registration. These multiple "transgressions" together with the original "suspicious" activity are compiled and you might find yourself in handcuffs.

 

[miketd1]

One of the first things I learned when testing for my NJ driver's license: Driving is a privilege, and not a constitutional right.

Lots of aspects about vehicles are already tracked (who owns the vehicle, where is it registered, previous owners, etc.).

Further, anyone using a GPS (pretty much everyone I know) voluntarily provides info regarding their present location, their speed, and their destination.

And finally, according to the article, PA law enforcement has been using those license plate readers since 2011.

Gonna have to get used to walking to those Buffett concerts.

 

[Knight Shift]

This is why I use stolen plates when I go to concerts.

Weak sauce. I know folks who use stolen cars.

 

[miketd1]

Weak sauce. I know folks who use stolen cars.

Real hippies hitchhike

 

[WhoRU?]

OK... Say that law enforcement doesn't mine the data and just uses it to check for stolen cars. I wonder if folks would object if their insurance companies gathered this "public data" and used it to track individuals' behaviors in an attempt to assess risk? Is it OK for private companies to partner or purchase this type of information from other corporations (banks, retail, gas stations) because it's being done already?

What chaps my behind is when the private sector takes public data, puts it together and then calls it a proprietary information. It gets even more frustrating when they try to sell it back to the public sector, and law enforcement agencies purchase it from the private sector because they don't want appear as big brother. In other words, big brother is big data, and the train has left the station. I'd rather have folks in the public sector who are as smart (or smarter) than folks at Google but who understand the ethical dilemmas that involve working with public data. Call me crazy but I'd rather have a person who has put their hand on a bible and sworn to uphold the laws of the land manage this, as opposed to someone who is looking to sell it to the highest bidder. The last thing that we need is more contractors doing this on behalf of the public... That's how we got Snowden.

 

[applesktrack]

We have a LPR system, we do not use it to track cars in real time. It is used to find stolen cars, suspended registrations and such. Also from my understanding, you do not own your license plate technically you rent it from the MVA. The MVA allows us to run the tag to get registration information any time it is on the road. It is not a privacy issue as driving isn't considered a right it is a privilege.

 

[ClassOf02]

Interesting topic. I guess I have a few thoughts.

1. On the surface, it feels like an overreach infringing on my personal liberties. But then how do we compare this overreach to all the other Big Brother tactics already in place? Is this really the issue, or just another thing on the long list of "get government out of my private life?"

2. I understand the argument that we're in a new world, fighting a brand new type of enemy, and more drastic measures have to be taken. That said, I believe the government still owes its citizens some measure of transparency regarding how personal info is being utilized. If, for example, there are hard and fast statistics (that are reasonably agreed upon and not politicized -- which may not be likely, but for the sake of this argument, let's assume they're legit) that say something like "In the last 12 months, these specific data collection efforts have allowed us to identify & detain/capture X number of suspected terrorists," I might feel better about the WHY behind what originally may appear to be just another Big Brother tactic. On the flip side, I also feel Joe Public deserves to know how many are falsely detained, info about error rates, etc. Without some level of transparency (in the aggregate), I don't feel good about just forfeiting my right to privacy.

3. Someone touched on it above, but I can't imagine the technology & therefore the database is 100% accurate 100% of the time. I'd want to know the likelihood of errors.

 

[RUScrew85]

When the technology helps solve or prevent a crime, or finds a missing kid I am for it. When It gets me in trouble then I am against it. Listen, we have given up our rights of privacy a long time ago, between cell phones and video cameras in every room and corner, you are always being recorded.

We? Not all of us have.

 

[RUScrew85]

We have a LPR system, we do not use it to track cars in real time. It is used to find stolen cars, suspended registrations and such. Also from my understanding, you do not own your license plate technically you rent it from the MVA. The MVA allows us to run the tag to get registration information any time it is on the road. It is not a privacy issue as driving isn't considered a right it is a privilege.

The "freedom" in your response is overwhelming.

 

[miketd1]

We? Not all of us have.

I take it you avoid flying..?

 

[dvb91]

Being a big Person Of Interest fan, I'm both concerned & not totally surprised. As noted above, the genie has been let out of the bottle a long time ago and the best we can do is try to suppress or contest any further known surveillance tactics.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

There is a fringe between legitimate information gathering and surveillance, and where we have struck the balance as to what constitutes a search is way, way out of whack.

All of this is coming from the fact that the Supreme Court has issued numerous pro-police, pro-surveillance opinions that basically limit your right to privacy to the windowless rooms of your house. That is literally where the line has been drawn. Scanning your home to see if it emits heat or light is not a search and can justify entry. If your home takes in to much electricity, that justifies a search. Anything that can be seen through a window or doorway is fair. When out of your home, you have no right to privacy while travelling in your vehicle, nor do you have a right to privacy on public lands, the lands of another person, or even your own fenced in lands. You can put a 20' fence around your yard, and the cops can fly a drone over your property and take photographs without a search warrant. The only part of your vehicle that is not subject to warrantless search is the trunk.

LPRs, and a lot of other data gathering by national security and law enforcement are stemming from these decisions. The rationale, which is probably correct under the law as it is currently interpreted, is that if it is legitimate for a cop to sit there and record every license plate that goes by (and it certainly is) then why can't they do it on an automated basis to save time and money, and then use a computer to analyze everything. This is why arguments that center on the "how" of collecting data typically don't make a lot of sense.

The right to privacy has been whittled at for years and, at least in my opinion, it is at the point that it no longer meaningfully exists. The problem is that that was fine for a lot of people. Law enforcement won victory after victory in the courts, and people justified these wins as acceptable with the usual bullshit arguments. Well "if you arent a criminal, you have nothing to worry about" and "there are only so many police, why would they be watching me if I am not doing anything wrong?' So screw the guy with the 20' fence and the marijuana garden - why should a law abiding citizen care if the cops used a drone to catch him. And screw the guy the cops follow to and from the drug supplier to the customer for 3 weeks to build their case...they have no reason to follow me so I have nothing to fear.

Because of technology, that whole dynamic is now changing. Now its not just a drone over a really suspicious guy's house. And its not just a cop sitting at the Holland tunnel looking for a handful of plate numbers or a particular individual. Its a drone flying over all of our houses, and recording what all of us have in our back yards. And its a plate reader every few miles tracking everywhere we all go. Its gone from using information to build a case against suspicious individuals, to "building a case" against all of us all the time. Now they just wait for some suspicion to arise so that they can use it.

 

[RUsSKii]

On its face, I don't have a problem with the use of L.E. License Plate Readers on public roads cross-checking in order to find stolen vehicles, solve Amber/Silver alerts, flag suspended vehicle registration, etc; it is basically more efficient than the eyes of officers on patrol. However, I do have a problem with the aggregation and tracking of this data, because aggregated data can be stolen, used for inappropriate and/or illegal investigations/searches, and is generally a further extension of Big Brother.

Further, any license plates scanned from vehicles sitting on private property should be treated similar to illegally obtained evidence, in a court of law.

 

[RUBand]

Let's look at the development of another surveillance method, the video cameras. I have no problem with them, am grateful they are helpful in solving crimes. Have they presented any downside, to date?

 

[RU4Real]

Let's look at the development of another surveillance method, the video cameras. I have no problem with them, am grateful they are helpful in solving crimes. Have they presented any downside, to date?

Not yet. They will.

The difference is that there is currently no platform on which video is aggregated, broken down at the facial recognition level, injected with metadata and subsequently archived.

The compute power is definitely there and separate bits and pieces of that solution are in place, but it hasn't yet been completed.

 

[mdk01]

The only thing I would question at all is the aggregation and cataloging I have no problem whatsoever with it being used to see if a car is stolen, has an expired registration, IN PARTICULAR if it's the subject of an Amber Alert (or Silver Alert as well).

 

[RUScrew85]

I take it you avoid flying..?

As much as possible.

 

[NotInRHouse]

This is not a store getting you on video.

This is a total overreach. This data will be used to waste money and time on moronic non-crimes like drug possession while many neighborhoods in Philly are actual "no go zones" for say, a 5 year old sitting on his front porch.

If law enforcement was subject to the oversight of any non-Wall Street industry we would save billions.

 

[mdk01]

This data will be used to waste money and time on moronic non-crimes

Kidnapping? Amber Alert? Stolen car?

 

[RU4Real]

Kidnapping? Amber Alert?

He's talking about aggregation and archiving, which isn't applicable in an Amber Alert situation.

 

[mdk01]

He's talking about aggregation and archiving, which isn't applicable in an Amber Alert situation.

I didn't notice that limitation in his response

 

[FELONIOUSMONK]

Just was at the Freehold Mall where the cops stand on the side of the entrances with a hand held to capture anything out of the ordinary . They had two cars filled with dangerous looking soccer moms pulled over on the ring road around the mall. Whatever it is I'm against it

 

[Piscataway]

When the technology helps solve or prevent a crime, or finds a missing kid I am for it. When It gets me in trouble then I am against it. Listen, we have given up our rights of privacy a long time ago, between cell phones and video cameras in every room and corner, you are always being recorded.

but these are choices you made in dealing with private companies. Its a little different when you cant opt out of the surveillance.

 

[REDRICH65]

Technology is slowly killing us. The coming age of robots will finish the job.

 

[Piscataway]

One of the first things I learned when testing for my NJ driver's license: Driving is a privilege, and not a constitutional right.

Lots of aspects about vehicles are already tracked (who owns the vehicle, where is it registered, previous owners, etc.).

Further, anyone using a GPS (pretty much everyone I know) voluntarily provides info regarding their present location, their speed, and their destination.

And finally, according to the article, PA law enforcement has been using those license plate readers since 2011.

Gonna have to get used to walking to those Buffett concerts.

Only if phone based. a Garmin or a tomtom don't work that way. GPS sats send down what are essentially time stamps. your receiver deciphers the difference in time stamps and via black magic provides a location. You are not being tracked.

 

[mdk01]

They had two cars filled with dangerous looking soccer moms pulled over on the ring road around the mall.

Driving while texting or using a cell phone?

 

[RU4Real]

Only if phone based. a Garmin or a tomtom don't work that way. GPS sats send down what are essentially time stamps. your receiver deciphers the difference in time stamps and via black magic provides a location. You are not being tracked.

Further, location broadcasting isn't a function of any form of GPS, per se. It only exists as a function of mobile apps - not just things like Google Maps, but pretty much every other mobile app, as well.

The cell phone system can pin your location fairly accurately, in real time, as the triangulation math it performs is a prerequisite to knowing which tower to route your calls through. Pinpoint accuracy (as required, for example, by E911 systems) is provided via the interpolated GPS location being sent over the wire. If you have (for example) Location Services disabled on your iPhone, calling 911 isn't going to give the call taker your precise location.

 

[rutgersdave]

I was thinking there would be aLPR on every neighborhood street and if it's not a license plate in the neighborhood, it would be recorded so if a crime is committed close to the street, it can be brought up. It might help to identify the kid racing his car down my street after 12:00 am

 

[RU85inFla]

We? Not all of us have.

Come on man. You put your name address and maybe your credit card on here where any minimum wage customer service rep for Rivals has access to it. Your wife has posted your picture. You detail every element of your travel to away games, your seats, your tailgate as well as your personal and political opinions.

But you don't give your privacy away.

I worked at AT&T in the late '80's and they sent personal calling data to the US government monthly. All was fine until Snowden came along. The government was using this data for years successfully. 30 years later, after discovered everyone pretends this was something new because Snowden let the cat out the bag. The bottom line is the government very effectively used tracking information (call detail) for decades and did not abuse it.

 

[RU4Real]

Come on man. You put your name address and maybe your credit card on here where any minimum wage customer service rep for Rivals has access to it. Your wife has posted your picture. You detail every element of your travel to away games, your seats, your tailgate as well as your personal and political opinions.

But you don't give your privacy away.

I worked at AT&T in the late '80's and they sent personal calling data to the US government monthly. All was fine until Snowden came along. The government was using this data for years successfully. 30 years later, after discovered everyone pretends this was something new because Snowden let the cat out the bag. The bottom line is the government very effectively used tracking information (call detail) for decades and did not abuse it.

The warrantless collection of personal data by law enforcement constitutes breach of privacy. They don't have to "abuse it" for it to be a breach.

You're confusing "they got away with it" with "nobody cared".