OT: LPR, Law Enforcement and Personal Freedom

[ruhudsonfan]

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.

Which I do in most cases--at least in my daily drives. If I'm coherent enough to make a call, I'm coherent enough to relay my position. If not, well then, what's the difference?

I do not enable locations on any apps, ever, for any reason, other than Google Maps. Instagram can suck my nuts with its "help us deliver you a better user experience" nonsense.

I one got a ticket on my parked car for an expired registration at the Sam's Club in Freehold. A LPR was the tool used. I can live with that. My papers were out of date, my bad. That, however, is nowhere near the same thing as Freehold PD archiving my daily trips to Sam's Club, cataloging those trips and running my shopping patterns into a predictive algorithm to determine what time of day I'm going to buy 3 pound bags of Doritos.

People who shrug their shoulders at these total assaults on personal freedom and liberty disgust me.

 

[oldman87]

Glad I stuck with Costco

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Kidnapping? Amber Alert? Stolen car?

This is such a red herring argument. Honestly no better than "if it saves one life."

How many active Amber alerts are there at any given time? They are so incredibly rare, that the likelihood of an LPR resulting in a capture seems to be nil. The benefits of LPR's do not outweigh the right to privacy.

 

[mdk01]

This is such a red herring argument. Honestly no better than "if it saves one life."

How many active Amber alerts are there at any given time? They are so incredibly rare, that the likelihood of an LPR resulting in a capture seems to be nil. The benefits of LPR's do not outweigh the right to privacy.

Stolen cars are rare? And I see Silver Alerts on eastbound Rte. 4 just west Garden State Plaza a couple of times a month.

 

[RU85inFla]

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".

That's fair. I prefer the confused side of the fence over the hypocritical side that protects their privacy dearly while posting everything about themselves online.

People say they care about privacy. However, people in the US do not care about protecting their private information. We all have a GPS device in our pockets. The data is there for the taking and being used by many marketing applications already. I walked into the Players Championship yesterday, opened the PGA Tour app and had info as to where the closest beer and bathroom were. If the PGA tour is tracking my where abouts I think I can let the police do it also.

A breach is only when you do something that is not is some bullshit agreement I checked the box to accept. I don't know if the police collecting data is a breach or not. I would have to read the local police privacy policy - which does not exist.

 

[mildone]

The bottom line is the government very effectively used tracking information (call detail) for decades and did not abuse it.

How do you know they didn't abuse it? I'm guessing you don't actually know everything they've done and do with that data.

 

[RU4Real]

That's fair. I prefer the confused side of the fence over the hypocritical side that protects their privacy dearly while posting everything about themselves online.

People say they care about privacy. However, people in the US do not care about protecting their private information. We all have a GPS device in our pockets. The data is there for the taking and being used by many marketing applications already. I walked into the Players Championship yesterday, opened the PGA Tour app and had info as to where the closest beer and bathroom were. If the PGA tour is tracking my where abouts I think I can let the police do it also.

A breach is only when you do something that is not is some bullshit agreement I checked the box to accept. I don't know if the police collecting data is a breach or not. I would have to read the local police privacy policy - which does not exist.

It's really all about "choice" vs. "no choice".

You can choose not to enable location services on your cell phone. Theoretically you could "choose" not to drive, as well, but that's not really a practical choice for most people.

 

[RU85inFla]

How do you know they didn't abuse it? I'm guessing you don't actually know everything they've done and do with that data.

I can play that game. What did they use it for that you have issues with?

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Stolen cars are rare? And I see Silver Alerts on eastbound Rte. 4 just west Garden State Plaza a couple of times a month.

I never said stolen cars were rare. I said Amber alerts are rare, which they are. And properly issued Amber alerts are even rarer. From 2002 to 2015, there were 818 Amber alerts issued nationwide. Of those 818, 114 were actual non-parental abductions. That's less than 9 per year. This is why I said it is as ridiculous as saying "if it saves one life." And those are really the only instances that would justify turning on scanners to watch all the cars on the highway in a given area.

Personally speaking, I don't think stolen cars or silver alerts are important at all really. They certainly don't add anything (for me at least) to the conversation about whether all of us should be subject to archived monitoring all the time. If you read about the topic, the advent of silver alerts is actually somewhat controversial. Most of the times, people do not actually need help. The entire idea behind Amber alerts was to limit the alert to a very small amount of highly dangerous situations, so as to maximize public response. Silver alerts impede that, by desensitizing the public at large to alerts of any kind. I pay zero attention to silver alerts. If there is an amber alert, I will actually look for the vehicle as I am driving.

 

[RU85inFla]

It's really all about "choice" vs. "no choice".

You can choose not to enable location services on your cell phone. Theoretically you could "choose" not to drive, as well, but that's not really a practical choice for most people.

You are right, it is about choice. You brought up privacy in a very specific example and worry about the ghosts in the closet. I have an analytics firm and we deal with tons of personal credit bureau and banking data. Is the collection of that data something you are concerned with? or is the inappropriate use of that data something you are concerned with? Personally I care about the later not the first. Without the first it is impossible to have a functioning economy. However putting constraints around how data can be used is what is important.

The same with the cops. All we have to do is put constraints around how they use it and we have a powerful policing tool. Protect the citizens from misuse but don't kill an effective tool. We shouldn't be scared of information but how it is used.

We can choose not to use credit cards. We can choose not to use debit cards. We can chooses not to give our credit cards to waiters that take them into a back room and swipe them returning them 5 minutes later. If we were really concerned about privacy we would do none of these.

 

[mildone]

I can play that game. What did they use it for that you have issues with?

Not a game. How would I know what they've done with it? How would anybody? That's my point. We don't know what we don't know.

Maybe you're a trusting person. I am not. I have no particular faith in Government to do the right thing. Nor do I trust private industry to do the right thing. I think that, as we move forward into an ever-more-intimately connected digital existence, it's our responsibility to push back against the invasion of our privacy and the hidden collection and aggregation/archiving of our "data". If for no other reason than because nobody has yet shown themselves to be particularly adept at safeguarding that data (given the number of high profile security breaches).

 

[FanuSanu52]

I take it you avoid flying..?

And using cell phones, and GPS and (of course) the Internet ...

 

[oldman87]

Pretty sure the government has Screw on ignore.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

You are right, it is about choice. You brought up privacy in a very specific example and worry about the ghosts in the closet. I have an analytics firm and we deal with tons of personal credit bureau and banking data. Is the collection of that data something you are concerned with? or is the inappropriate use of that data something you are concerned with? Personally I care about the later not the first. Without the first it is impossible to have a functioning economy. However putting constraints around how data can be used is what is important.

The same with the cops. All we have to do is put constraints around how they use it and we have a powerful policing tool. Protect the citizens from misuse but don't kill an effective tool. We shouldn't be scared of information but how it is used.

We can choose not to use credit cards. We can choose not to use debit cards. We can chooses not to give our credit cards to waiters that take them into a back room and swipe them returning them 5 minutes later. If we were really concerned about privacy we would do none of these.

All who has to do is put constraints on how cops use it? The entire point is that as it pertains to the government, there are no restraints. Even if they implement directives and protocol aimed at preventing certain uses of data, there is no mechanism to enforce violations. Once the government has data, it will use it as it sees fit. Just look at how they unilaterally abridged basically every limitation on personal privacy and due process in the wake of 9/11. When things go wrong, the scary thing is most certainly not the way they are using information today, but how they will use it if they feel they need to.

 

[FanuSanu52]

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.

I don't think that was ever true, and it's definitely not today. Forgetting about the whole "big brother" aspect, GPS companies have relied on the collection of historical location data for improving services and products.

"In a report from December, the Government Accountability Office details the data-collection practices used by the country's leading in-car navigation suppliers [PDF]. GAO spoke with representatives from six car-makers (Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota), two portable GPS makers (Garmin and TomTom), and two app developers (Google Maps and Telenav). All ten collect location data from customers; nine share that data with outside companies to provide additional services."

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/01/your-car-navigation-system-already-watching-you/8045/

 

[RU85inFla]

Not a game. How would I know what they've done with it? How would anybody? That's my point. We don't know what we don't know.

Maybe you're a trusting person. I am not. I have no particular faith in Government to do the right thing. Nor do I trust private industry to do the right thing. I think that, as we move forward into an ever-more-intimately connected digital existence, it's our responsibility to push back against the invasion of our privacy and the hidden collection and aggregation/archiving of our "data". If for no other reason than because nobody has yet shown themselves to be particularly adept at safeguarding that data (given the number of high profile security breaches).

Ignorance is not a virtue as Obama says!!! Our entire economy runs on the collection, aggregation and sharing of very personal information. Just because there have been high profile breaches do not conclude that the system is bad. The system is constantly under attack and most threats are stopped. The system behaves spectacularly and just because there are high profile breaches once in awhile it does not mean all is bad in the world.

You state that nobody has proven themselves adept at safeguarding that data. I gave you an example where the government safeguarded telephone data for decades until Snowden committed treason. I think they did a good job. I pointed out that we share elements of our credit data with complete strangers rather than insisting the the credit card machine is brought to our tables like in other countries and we have relatively few breeches considering. I think the credit bureau system is pretty good but can be tightened up. The government collects and sells tons of census data without any personal breaches. That is a great example. The IRS collects and shares data all of the time and we don't hear of breaches.

Google tracks all that you do on the internet and sells that information. So does Facebook and Yahoo, that parent of Rivals, yet that does not stop the billions of people from surfing the web.

Just because you don't know how it works does not mean its bad. For 100% or your entire life companies and government agencies have been collecting, aggregating, sharing and selling data that is used in many ways. Now it is bad.

I am sorry but that is an ignorant position to take. Stop worrying about the ghosts in the closet. Be smart enough to support legislation as to what the police can do with the data.

 

[WhoRU?]

As I said earlier in this thread, the train has left the station on this one. The link below adds another layer to linking data sources that we routinely give to private corporations. Do we have a problem if government pays for it the way a marketing firm would, but to solve crimes or catches welfare frauds? I'd like to think that the police are using the same tools (or better) than the company trying to sell me tooth paste.

Lexis Nexis for Law Enforcement

 

[RobertG]

I think we should all do this:

http://hackaday.com/2014/04/04/sql-injection-fools-speed-traps-and-clears-your-record/

 

[RobertG]

I don't think that was ever true, and it's definitely not today. Forgetting about the whole "big brother" aspect, GPS companies have relied on the collection of historical location data for improving services and products.

"In a report from December, the Government Accountability Office details the data-collection practices used by the country's leading in-car navigation suppliers [PDF]. GAO spoke with representatives from six car-makers (Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota), two portable GPS makers (Garmin and TomTom), and two app developers (Google Maps and Telenav). All ten collect location data from customers; nine share that data with outside companies to provide additional services."

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/01/your-car-navigation-system-already-watching-you/8045/

What Piscataway did say is true, except for the part of black magic. It's just geometry. GPS is multiple satellites sending down signals with the ids and times. There is no data traveling back up to the satellites. On a phone apps collect location data and may send it back to the app servers via data connection. A GPS may send data back to the maker when you plug it into the computer to get updates.

 

[RU4Real]

I think we should all do this:

http://hackaday.com/2014/04/04/sql-injection-fools-speed-traps-and-clears-your-record/

I assure you, that wouldn't do anything.

There are two elements to an LPR database object. The digital image, after being OCR'd, is sent off to archival storage. The metadata, which contains the interpreted OCR data and the geotag and timestamp, is written to a fast storage platform. From the perspective of the application there isn't any way to insert an operation into the OCR data.

 

[FanuSanu52]

What Piscataway did say is true, except for the part of black magic. It's just geometry. GPS is multiple satellites sending down signals with the ids and times. There is no data traveling back up to the satellites. On a phone apps collect location data and may send it back to the app servers via data connection. A GPS may send data back to the maker when you plug it into the computer to get updates.

Well, except for the part about Garmins and TomToms not collecting data, which is expressly untrue.

Any GPS units your info applies to (the ol' Garmin Nuvi suctioned to the windshield) are going the way of the flip phone, replaced by smart, two-way communications systems built into cars or on smartphones. GPS will continue moving in that direction.

 

[RU Husky]

Everything old is new again. Government surveillance and police profiling were major legal issues for the civil liberties bar back in the late 60's-early 70's in NJ. It is amazing as to what we've come to accept as " reasonable infringements" on our First Amendment rights.

 

[RU4Real]

Everything old is new again. Government surveillance and police profiling were major legal issues for the civil liberties bar back in the late 60's-early 70's in NJ. It is amazing as to what we've come to accept as " reasonable infringements" on our First Amendment rights.

Which brings up an interesting point. The 1st Amendment, as we all know, reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems to me that it could be argued that a lot of this data collection is occurring independent of any specific legislation. So from a legal standpoint, I'm interested to know, generally speaking, how the courts would view "extra-legal" actions that would constitute infringement if those actions were legislated.

 

[Piscataway]

I don't think that was ever true, and it's definitely not today. Forgetting about the whole "big brother" aspect, GPS companies have relied on the collection of historical location data for improving services and products.

"In a report from December, the Government Accountability Office details the data-collection practices used by the country's leading in-car navigation suppliers [PDF]. GAO spoke with representatives from six car-makers (Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota), two portable GPS makers (Garmin and TomTom), and two app developers (Google Maps and Telenav). All ten collect location data from customers; nine share that data with outside companies to provide additional services."

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/01/your-car-navigation-system-already-watching-you/8045/

You are talking about connected devices. GPS units, on their own, do not transmit anything.

 

[RU Husky]

All who has to do is put constraints on how cops use it? The entire point is that as it pertains to the government, there are no restraints. Even if they implement directives and protocol aimed at preventing certain uses of data, there is no mechanism to enforce violations. Once the government has data, it will use it as it sees fit. Just look at how they unilaterally abridged basically every limitation on personal privacy and due process in the wake of 9/11. When things go wrong, the scary thing is most certainly not the way they are using information today, but how they will use it if they feel they need to.

Come on, you are smarter than that. There are the federal and state constitutions and the courts which are there to proscribe government conduct and provide restraints. The tension between liberty and order has been with us since the British issued the writs of assistance and remains the challenge of our times.

 

[brianoc]

I do not like the fact that police were provided equipment under the guise of security and they use that equipment to issue tickets instead.

 

[RUich]

What is the actual purpose of having plates? I always assumed that it was to help identify each vehicle from all of the others. I see no real problem with technology being used to see if a given vehicle is stolen or wanted for some form of reason.
I agree with Knight Shift in that I have nothing to hide and could care less if they want to "track" my vehicle. My guess is that we all sleep a lot better due to our police having more tools to catch the people we don't want to meet in our hallways. Besides, as already noted, our GPS's are already keeping track of where we are and the car's computer is keeping track of how we drive.

 

[brianoc]

These tools are used mostly to raise revenue

 

[RutgersRaRa]

We? Not all of us have.

Not everybody has lead paper in their walls. Not.......everybody.

 

[RU4Real]

What is the actual purpose of having plates? I always assumed that it was to help identify each vehicle from all of the others. I see no real problem with technology being used to see if a given vehicle is stolen or wanted for some form of reason.
I agree with Knight Shift in that I have nothing to hide and could care less if they want to "track" my vehicle. My guess is that we all sleep a lot better due to our police having more tools to catch the people we don't want to meet in our hallways. Besides, as already noted, our GPS's are already keeping track of where we are and the car's computer is keeping track of how we drive.

Would you care if the government tapped all your phone lines and listened to your phone calls as long as you "have nothing to hide"?

Is it okay if they put listening devices in your house, as long as you have "nothing to hide"?

Having nothing to hide (allegedly) isn't a sound reason for giving up personal liberties.

 

[mildone]

Ignorance is not a virtue as Obama says!!! Our entire economy runs on the collection, aggregation and sharing of very personal information. Just because there have been high profile breaches do not conclude that the system is bad. The system is constantly under attack and most threats are stopped. The system behaves spectacularly and just because there are high profile breaches once in awhile it does not mean all is bad in the world.

You state that nobody has proven themselves adept at safeguarding that data. I gave you an example where the government safeguarded telephone data for decades until Snowden committed treason. I think they did a good job. I pointed out that we share elements of our credit data with complete strangers rather than insisting the the credit card machine is brought to our tables like in other countries and we have relatively few breeches considering. I think the credit bureau system is pretty good but can be tightened up. The government collects and sells tons of census data without any personal breaches. That is a great example. The IRS collects and shares data all of the time and we don't hear of breaches.

Google tracks all that you do on the internet and sells that information. So does Facebook and Yahoo, that parent of Rivals, yet that does not stop the billions of people from surfing the web.

Just because you don't know how it works does not mean its bad. For 100% or your entire life companies and government agencies have been collecting, aggregating, sharing and selling data that is used in many ways. Now it is bad.

I am sorry but that is an ignorant position to take. Stop worrying about the ghosts in the closet. Be smart enough to support legislation as to what the police can do with the data.

We don't hear about IRS breaches? (Massive IRS Data Breach Much Bigger Than First Thought)

The census bureau? (http://www.securityweek.com/us-census-bureau-confirms-data-breach) This particular breach may not have revealed personal information (according to the census bereau), but that was mostly a matter of luck.

How about the 18 million plus people who's details were compromised by the Office of Personnel Management's data breach? (OPM Suspends Background Check System to Patch Security Bug)

You talk about ignorance. Then you proceed to make laughably ignorant and incorrect assumptions about what I know about digital security, or cyber-security. Followed by further ignorant and incorrect assumptions about what I know about how social media companies (e.g. Facebook) collect, aggregate and use user data.

Next time you're going to preach about ignorance, at least do a quick web search to find public information on the subject. And that's just what's been reported to the public.

 

[NotInRHouse]

@mdk01

Not sure the databases are helping with stolen cars which seems to be a problem on the decline. And how long is that data maintained and aggregated?

I turned off Amber Alert on my phone after a piercing 2:30 AM weeknight wail about a missing girl in Delaware...I live in Jersey City. I know it has worked but seems like they are casting a super big net.

 

[e5fdny]

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

See, this guy is funny.

Some of you think you are, but ya ain't.

 

[RU4Real]

See, this guy is funny.

Some of you think you are, but ya ain't.

I would have thought that you'd use your time to take shots at NYPD.

 

[e5fdny]

I would have thought that you'd use your time to take shots at NYPD.

Too easy, and sometimes they do come in handy...

As you know I am not the biggest guy in world but as a boss I do have to go in first. When we have to deal with an EDP or somebody who might have a bad reaction to narcan I always make sure as the incident commander I find the biggest cop on the scene and put him in between me and the person having a bad day. As Hammer used to say... you can't touch this.

 

[iReC89]

A police car disguised as a data mining giant is hardly camouflaged. This sounds like a joke to me.

I have no problem with skillful observation of public behavior for the purpose of identifying miscreants. Its the private sector that irritates me.

 

[RU4Real]

Too easy, and sometimes they do come in handy...

As you know I am not the biggest guy in world but as a boss I do have to go in first. When we have to deal with an EDP or somebody who might have a bad reaction to narcan I always make sure as the incident commander I find the biggest cop on the scene and put him in between me and the person having a bad day. As Hammer used to say... you can't touch this.

Huh. That didn't always work for me. The Manalapan cops were always willing to throw down, but the Englishtown cops always used to run away from Naked PCP Guy and leave us to deal with him on our own.

 

[FanuSanu52]

You are talking about connected devices. GPS units, on their own, do not transmit anything.

You said "only phone based" track data, and you said Garmins and Tom Toms don't. Both statements are untrue. Car nav systems, which have largely replaced the near-obsolete units you're trying to bring up, don't need to be phone based to track your data, and some Garmins and Tom Toms do track data. Even had you said what you wanted to say, which is that standalone, non-connected GPS units don't collect data, it would have been fairly useless in a world that sees those devices as one step removed from PDAs and VHS players.

 

[RU4Real]

You said "only phone based" track data, and you said Garmins and Tom Toms don't. Both statements are untrue. Car nav systems, which have largely replaced the near-obsolete units you're trying to bring up, don't need to be phone based to track your data, and some Garmins and Tom Toms do track data. Even had you said what you wanted to say, which is that standalone, non-connected GPS units don't collect data, it would have been fairly useless in a world that sees those devices as one step removed from PDAs and VHS players.

They don't need to be phone based, but they have to have a data connection - they require some sort of transmitter. GM vehicles utilize their OnStar systems to transmit GPS data back up the link. Other manufacturers rely on the vehicles' optional data connectivity. A vehicle GPS system that lacks either of those two elements (such as mine) won't send data back to the manufacturer simply because there's no mechanism by which to do so.

 

[Piscataway]

You said "only phone based" track data, and you said Garmins and Tom Toms don't. Both statements are untrue. Car nav systems, which have largely replaced the near-obsolete units you're trying to bring up, don't need to be phone based to track your data, and some Garmins and Tom Toms do track data. Even had you said what you wanted to say, which is that standalone, non-connected GPS units don't collect data, it would have been fairly useless in a world that sees those devices as one step removed from PDAs and VHS players.

I said connected you illiterate SFCS!

And let me reiterate, the GPS system does not receive ANY data from ANY device you or I have. It's a one way system.