OT: LPR, Law Enforcement and Personal Freedom

[mildone]

Where to start???

There are significant data breaches every year. Do you know that less than .5% of those victims ever have fraud against them.

Do you know that 40% of people will have fraud committed against their credit card or debit card. However I am sure the next time you go to the restaurant you will gladly give your card to a stranger that takes it into the back room.

As I stated above credit bureaus are the backbone of lending in every country on the planet. Should we get rid of them because they continuously have security issues? Credit and debit cards are the backbone of commerce in every country on the planet and fraud is so rampant that 40% of users will get victimized annually. Should we get rid of them?

As stated above, your phone has a GPS and at some level is tracking you, should we get rid of our phones? Do you surf the internet, someone is tracking you? Maybe we should get rid of the internet also.

If there are tools that help police do a better job, we should allow them to use them and put safeguards against their abuse. If you have no faith in government being able to do so as stated above, then maybe you need to find a different place to live. A place with no credit bureaus, no internet, no credit cards, no government, no computers, etc. Ted Kaczynski can help you find that place.

You're now arguing about something I never said and don't think. Nobody here is arguing that we shouldn't use credit cards or stop using our phones or avoid GPS navigation. I'm also not even remotely anti-government, nor am I anti-tech or anti-progress.

I am troubled however, about the apparent lack of awareness and concern at the degree to which our movements are being tracked by corporations (such as Google) and the government and the potential impacts of such tracking.

This is not a black and white case of giving tools to the police or taking away all their tools. This is a discussion about where, on the spectrum between individual privacy with it's inherently higher risk and complete abdication of privacy with theoretically lower risk, we should exist.

You appear to be arguing for a complete abdication of our rights to privacy because we've already gone far down that path. Perhaps you think it's inevitable. And that's fine for you.

Just don't insist that the rest of us wave the white flag and stick our heads in the sand next to you.

 

[mildone]

Agree with what some posters already mentioned re: privacy: horse is out of the stable.

So the real issue isn't whether or not we accept tracking, but to what extent.

As Screw suggests, we still hold the answer to that as individuals for the most part.

We can have our modern conveniences (internet, cell phones, vehicles, air travel, etc.) or we can choose to live an Amish-style existence in an off grid earthship:

At least part of the answer to the question of what we can do about securing our data and our communication is encapsulated in Apple's fight w/the FBI. Personal encryption gives us a tool with which we can exert at least some level of control over our privacy without resorting to living an Amish existence.

 

[wheezer]

Many years ago my wife had her car stolen from outside our house....... About 2 weeks later the police contacted me, the thief had an accident with it, totaling the car, and ran off.....

The guy used the car for his own personal day to day things, going to work, etc...

A couple of weeks after the accident I received two parking tickets he had gotten parking in front of his house..... If the township had any sort of communication with a stolen car registry I would have gotten the car back well before he smacked it up....

Anyway, in today's world, I have no problem with my plates being run by the police since I hopefully have nothing to hide.

 

[RU85inFla]

You're now arguing about something I never said and don't think. Nobody here is arguing that we shouldn't use credit cards or stop using our phones or avoid GPS navigation. I'm also not even remotely anti-government, nor am I anti-tech or anti-progress.

I am troubled however, about the apparent lack of awareness and concern at the degree to which our movements are being tracked by corporations (such as Google) and the government and the potential impacts of such tracking.

This is not a black and white case of giving tools to the police or taking away all their tools. This is a discussion about where, on the spectrum between individual privacy with it's inherently higher risk and complete abdication of privacy with theoretically lower risk, we should exist.

You appear to be arguing for a complete abdication of our rights to privacy because we've already gone far down that path. Perhaps you think it's inevitable. And that's fine for you.

Just don't insist that the rest of us wave the white flag and stick our heads in the sand next to you.

Please don't be troubled by my apparent lack of awareness or concern. That concern is something fabricated in your mind alone.

What concerns me is people's lack of understanding about what is an issue in the data world and what is not. You seem very concerned about data breaches. Guess what, they are not the worst thing in the world. Give a crook millions or credit card numbers and they are all shut down before even a few are compromised. Give a crook access to someone's personal information and there is not a ton they can do with it.

With respect to individual privacy, my experiance, and this thread proves it out is that people are very reluctant to do anything remotely that makes their lives harder in the name of protecting privacy. i.e. minimizing the use of credit/debit cards, stop posting everything about their private life on the internet etc. I know the shit Google collects. I use it everyday in my work life. I know the shit the credit bureaus collect. I use it every day in my work life. I know the shit every company you do business with collects because I use it every day in my work life.

What I find hypocritical is that seemingly educated people want to have a discussion about where, on the spectrum between individual privacy with it's inherently higher risk and complete abdication of privacy with theoretically lower risk, we should exist. The point as demonstrated here is that many people totally misconstrue all the stuff they do daily as low risk and the stuff they don't do as high risk. WRONG!!!!!! It's simple human nature and by construing it as risky would imply they had to change behavior and that takes work. It also implies they are behaving irrationally.

My point is simple, if you are worried about someone invading your privacy via the misuse of data, then stop handing your credit card to strangers. That is much more likely to cause an issue that cops in Philadelphia tracking your travels.

BTW - They do have cameras all over London so we do have a great case study to utilize if we want to ensure proper controls by the police.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

...We can have our modern conveniences (internet, cell phones, vehicles, air travel, etc.) or we can choose to live an Amish-style existence in an off grid earthship:

Now you're just teasing @RUScrew85. Kinda cruel to do this to the poor guy since he's years away from owning a glorious establishment like that.

 

[Armor and Sword]

On a similar note and thanks to LPRs, vehicles registered in Pennsylvania will no longer need annual registration stickers starting in 2017. One corner of my PA tag has about several years work of stickers caked on and baked into the plate and I put the 2016 registration sticker in another corner this year.

 

[RU4Real]

Please don't be troubled by my apparent lack of awareness or concern. That concern is something fabricated in your mind alone.

What concerns me is people's lack of understanding about what is an issue in the data world and what is not. You seem very concerned about data breaches. Guess what, they are not the worst thing in the world. Give a crook millions or credit card numbers and they are all shut down before even a few are compromised. Give a crook access to someone's personal information and there is not a ton they can do with it.

With respect to individual privacy, my experiance, and this thread proves it out is that people are very reluctant to do anything remotely that makes their lives harder in the name of protecting privacy. i.e. minimizing the use of credit/debit cards, stop posting everything about their private life on the internet etc. I know the shit Google collects. I use it everyday in my work life. I know the shit the credit bureaus collect. I use it every day in my work life. I know the shit every company you do business with collects because I use it every day in my work life.

What I find hypocritical is that seemingly educated people want to have a discussion about where, on the spectrum between individual privacy with it's inherently higher risk and complete abdication of privacy with theoretically lower risk, we should exist. The point as demonstrated here is that many people totally misconstrue all the stuff they do daily as low risk and the stuff they don't do as high risk. WRONG!!!!!! It's simple human nature and by construing it as risky would imply they had to change behavior and that takes work. It also implies they are behaving irrationally.

My point is simple, if you are worried about someone invading your privacy via the misuse of data, then stop handing your credit card to strangers. That is much more likely to cause an issue that cops in Philadelphia tracking your travels.

BTW - They do have cameras all over London so we do have a great case study to utilize if we want to ensure proper controls by the police.

Except the conversation isn't about what's "more likely to cause an issue".

It's about whether or not the cops have the right to catalog your daily movements.

It has absolutely nothing to do with credit cards.

 

[RU85inFla]

Except the conversation isn't about what's "more likely to cause an issue".

It's about whether or not the cops have the right to catalog your daily movements.

It has absolutely nothing to do with credit cards.

Of course they have the right. It's not illegal.

 

[RU4Real]

Of course they have the right. It's not illegal.

Do they also have the right to eavesdrop on your phone calls?

Where's the line?

 

[mildone]

Of course they have the right. It's not illegal.

Following up on @RU4Real's response to this...

Just because most people unthinkingly grant access to various apps on their phones that permit those apps to turn on the microphone and camera on that phone whenever they wish and record and collect information, does that make it a good thing?

Is it okay if the government taps into that data collection? Is it okay if your phone records you having sex with whoever you have sex with and transmits that recording to the government?

 

[oldman87]

Is it okay if the government taps into that data collection? Is it okay if your phone records you having sex with whoever you have sex with and transmits that recording to the government?

Knowing someone might be watching is a huge turn on for me.

 

[RU848789]

I'd rather that nobody had any of my personal data, but I know that in today's world that's impractical, so the next best thing is to have controls in place that allow personal data to be aggregated to provide insightful population/group-level trends without allowing that data to be used to determine something about any specific individual. That's with regard to what I would call "behavioral" data (purchases, travel, etc.) and mining that data and using it for group trends.

With regard to the police or government actively evaluating people's behaviors in real time, just on the off-chance that they might catch some criminal behavior, I don't think that should be allowed at all - that kind of information should only be gathered about an individual if there is reasonable cause, similar to a search warrant. Obviously, surveillance tools are used, after a crime, to help identify suspects, but again, that's just gathering evidence - it's not using cameras and facial recognition to evaluate patterns and prospectively identify someone likely to commit a crime.

 

[RU85inFla]

Do they also have the right to eavesdrop on your phone calls?

Where's the line?

My personal opinion is the line was crossed decades ago. You don't need positive information in the credit bureaus to effectively underwrite a loan yet we in the US have positive as well as negative information. As I said we were giving telephone data to the governement years ago. They were tracking everyone you called for decades and I am sure they are doing it now.

The dawning of the internet came quickly and in an effort not to stifle growth consumer privacy was given away. I have no idea how to move back to normal and appropriate. What really bothers me though is the hypocrisy over not allowing cops or the government to utilize information that would be beneficial to society while Americans give away their privacy in an ignorant manner every day.

Do cops have the right to eavesdrop on phone calls? I am not an expert on every law but I believe they do not have that right without some form of warrant. But as I said above, if it's not illegal than it would be naive to believe they would not do so.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

My personal opinion is the line was crossed decades ago. You don't need positive information in the credit bureaus to effectively underwrite a loan yet we in the US have positive as well as negative information. As I said we were giving telephone data to the governement years ago. They were tracking everyone you called for decades and I am sure they are doing it now.

The dawning of the internet came quickly and in an effort not to stifle growth consumer privacy was given away. I have no idea how to move back to normal and appropriate. What really bothers me though is the hypocrisy over not allowing cops or the government to utilize information that would be beneficial to society while Americans give away their privacy in an ignorant manner every day.

Do cops have the right to eavesdrop on phone calls? I am not an expert on every law but I believe they do not have that right without some form of warrant. But as I said above, if it's not illegal than it would be naive to believe they would not do so.

What the government can do with that data is a lot more scary than what a criminal can do with it. Criminals are not a big deal really... 99.99% of the issues are going to be stolen credit cards, which the consumer is insured against anyway.

 

[patk89]

I worry that in the future, with all the data that is collected on each and every one of us, that political groups will be targeted by the party in power. We saw the IRS targeting conservative groups and causing them problems. It is possible to take it further and focus audits on people who are either conservative or liberal (depending on who is controlling things). This is very dangerous abuse of power but we all know that power corrupts.

 

[FELONIOUSMONK]

Mo, When you drive into Portland do you feel all eyes staring at you ?

 

[RU85inFla]

I worry that in the future, with all the data that is collected on each and every one of us, that political groups will be targeted by the party in power. We saw the IRS targeting conservative groups and causing them problems. It is possible to take it further and focus audits on people who are either conservative or liberal (depending on who is controlling things). This is very dangerous abuse of power but we all know that power corrupts.

You hit the nail on the head. The abuse of power is the issue. If a cop tracks where I drive electronically or follows behind me in a patrol car it's not necessarily an issue until he decided to do something with the data he collects. The abuse of power is the issue and as we have seen with the NSA, with cops, with the IRS and others it is the abuse of power that needs to be dealt with.

 

[mildone]

Knowing someone might be watching is a huge turn on for me.

And I like to watch. What a pair we are. :D

 

[ruhudsonfan]

You hit the nail on the head. The abuse of power is the issue. If a cop tracks where I drive electronically or follows behind me in a patrol car it's not necessarily an issue until he decided to do something with the data he collects. The abuse of power is the issue and as we have seen with the NSA, with cops, with the IRS and others it is the abuse of power that needs to be dealt with.

From what I can see here, there are two primary arguments in favor from several people.

1. I have nothing to hide, so track me all you want.

This is so epically retarded I won't waste the effort addressing it. Anyone who feels this way should be sodomized with a cactus.

2. As citizens of a global, interconnected, advanced economy, we voluntarily surrender intimate details about ourselves daily. Data is aggregated, mined, insights extracted and public and private organizations use this information to make our lives better--we no longer have to wait in line at the DMV to register our vehicles, we can buy a 7 buck coffee at Starbucks with our Apple Pay and we pay our bill at the tittie bar with our debit card. The data breaches we've seen at all levels of this ecosystem are one off events and can do very little to REALLY harm us--our credit cards are insured against theft and identity theft is not REALLY a serious issue.

We can debate the merits of the arguments in point 2. I think you gloss over the effects of some things, as this is where your bread is buttered. I'm sympathetic and will accept some of those arguments at face value.

Tell me what, on God's Green Earth, ANY OF THAT, has to do with cops STORING MY COMINGS AND GOINGS for upwards of 5 years? This is where I have trouble. If you want to make a case that random, roving LPR scanners are necessary to find stolen cars and abducted babies, I'm not gonna get too lathered up. However, when you tell me that municipal PDs have the authority to catalog, analyze and store that data for as long as they are willing to pay for storage space, I have a major issue with that. Who's purpose is served, exactly?

 

[RU848789]

Often I sum it up like this: I just don't want anyone to know what I've been doing, where I've been doing it, and with whom - and it's mostly just the principle of the thing, as my life is relatively boring. There's a reason why I was late to the cell phone world and a reason why I haven't yet bought a smart phone and there's a reason why I never want cash to go away. Especially singles...and twenties. :>)

 

[RU4Real]

.

Tell me what, on God's Green Earth, ANY OF THAT, has to do with cops STORING MY COMINGS AND GOINGS for upwards of 5 years? This is where I have trouble. If you want to make a case that random, roving LPR scanners are necessary to find stolen cars and abducted babies, I'm not gonna get too lathered up. However, when you tell me that municipal PDs have the authority to catalog, analyze and store that data for as long as they are willing to pay for storage space, I have a major issue with that. Who's purpose is served, exactly?

I think this really captures the essence of the thing.

I have nothing against LPR technology to help us with our lives. Hell, I was on the Design/Build team for two of the country's first electronic tolling systems and built examples of all the current roadway technology - and designed one that hasn't been built, yet, because that industry is still waiting for the data source to come online (it inevitably will).

But as @ruhudsonfan said, there's no practical reason why the individual data elements should be saved for extraordinary periods of time. It's overtly intrusive. That's why the roadway systems (except tolling, obviously) are all designed to anonymize the participants.

 

[RU85inFla]

From what I can see here, there are two primary arguments in favor from several people.

1. I have nothing to hide, so track me all you want.

This is so epically retarded I won't waste the effort addressing it. Anyone who feels this way should be sodomized with a cactus.

2. As citizens of a global, interconnected, advanced economy, we voluntarily surrender intimate details about ourselves daily. Data is aggregated, mined, insights extracted and public and private organizations use this information to make our lives better--we no longer have to wait in line at the DMV to register our vehicles, we can buy a 7 buck coffee at Starbucks with our Apple Pay and we pay our bill at the tittie bar with our debit card. The data breaches we've seen at all levels of this ecosystem are one off events and can do very little to REALLY harm us--our credit cards are insured against theft and identity theft is not REALLY a serious issue.

We can debate the merits of the arguments in point 2. I think you gloss over the effects of some things, as this is where your bread is buttered. I'm sympathetic and will accept some of those arguments at face value.

Tell me what, on God's Green Earth, ANY OF THAT, has to do with cops STORING MY COMINGS AND GOINGS for upwards of 5 years? This is where I have trouble. If you want to make a case that random, roving LPR scanners are necessary to find stolen cars and abducted babies, I'm not gonna get too lathered up. However, when you tell me that municipal PDs have the authority to catalog, analyze and store that data for as long as they are willing to pay for storage space, I have a major issue with that. Who's purpose is served, exactly?

Hudson there are 2 points I have tried to make here.

1. Don't cry about your privacy is being taken away when you give it away freely. That's a week argument.

2. Get informed about data issues so you can understand what is an issue and what is not an issue. Don't rely only on the idiots writing sensational articles.

As far as your question, I am not in favor of anybody collecting and storing data for the sake of keeping it. I do see the value of police departments tracking cars but there are huge risks. My point is simple, if we don't make it illegal than they seemingly have the right to do it. And if the start doing it and we don't place controls then we are idiots. But my god I hope we can articulate the reason for not collecting or not storing forever with better arguments than I value my privacy and I don't trust the government.

 

[RUScrew85]

Of course they have the right. It's not illegal.

You also need to learn the difference between Rights and laws.

 

[RU4Real]

Hudson there are 2 points I have tried to make here.

1. Don't cry about your privacy is being taken away when you give it away freely. That's a week argument.

2. Get informed about data issues so you can understand what is an issue and what is not an issue. Don't rely only on the idiots writing sensational articles.

As far as your question, I am not in favor of anybody collecting and storing data for the sake of keeping it. I do see the value of police departments tracking cars but there are huge risks. My point is simple, if we don't make it illegal than they seemingly have the right to do it. And if the start doing it and we don't place controls then we are idiots. But my god I hope we can articulate the reason for not collecting or not storing forever with better arguments than I value my privacy and I don't trust the government.

I rarely speak for my friends but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that what you said there (italics) is precisely the manner in which we believe you're wrong on the subject.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution exist to protect individual citizens from government overreach. That. Is. Their. Purpose. So the liberties granted therein do NOT have to be justified.

 

[RU4Real]

But further...

When it comes to the exercise of any of those liberties, "because I f*ckin' said so" is all the justification required.

The rest is just intellectual gymnastics.

 

[FanuSanu52]

This is an interesting debate, but entirely academic. Unless someone plans to blow up technology all together and start back in the Stone Age, this is going to keep happening, more and more, in more parts of your everyday life.

As of today, you could connect virtually every belonging you own, giving away all kinds of information about yourself in the process. Maybe you don't do that yet ... but you will, unless you live in an off-grid compound in the desert, which is kind of cool in its own right.

 

[RU85inFla]

But further...

When it comes to the exercise of any of those liberties, "because I f*ckin' said so" is all the justification required.

The rest is just intellectual gymnastics.

And because you say so on a Rivals football board is really all the justification required for anything in your world.

Now back to the real world. The Philadelphia police department has been using this technology since 2011. Maybe if you post in bold it will get thru to them. They are doing it because they believe they have the right to do so, regardless of your interpretation of the ten amendments of the constitution say.

 

[RU4Real]

And because you say so on a Rivals football board is really all the justification required for anything in your world.

Now back to the real world. The Philadelphia police department has been using this technology since 2011. Maybe if you post in bold it will get thru to them. They are doing it because they believe they have the right to do so, regardless of your interpretation of the ten amendments of the constitution say.

By suggesting that my only contact with this issue is posting this thread you seem to be making an assumption that isn't accurate. I obviously have some skin in this game, in some way. It's why I posted the thread.

 

[Trekology]

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

John Oliver's bit is pretty spot on. "E911" is horrifically unreliable, it doesn't work well in many places (and sometimes not at all), and the entire 911 system is pretty much held together with duct tape. It isn't as secure or reliable as people think it is.

 

[RU848789]

John Oliver's bit is pretty spot on. "E911" is horrifically unreliable, it doesn't work well in many places (and sometimes not at all), and the entire 911 system is pretty much held together with duct tape. It isn't as secure or reliable as people think it is.

And way understaffed in many locations, exacerbated by millions of unnecessary calls every year: 100 people who see an accident, people who call up about stupid, non-emergency crap (although the "I made potty" example was pretty damn cute), and 80+ million butt dials annually.

 

[RutgersMO]

In your brain was this point so profound as to require being enlarged and multi-colored?

It was my first post ever via the Rivals Application on my Cell phone as I waited for flight from OR to CA. What bothered you most....the color, the size or both?

If the color or SIZE bothered you....get over it- or not !

MO

 

[FanuSanu52]

It was my first post ever via the Rivals Application on my Cell phone as I waited for flight from OR to CA. What bothered you most....the color, the size or both?

If the color or SIZE bothered you....get over it- or not !

MO

Seriously, you don't need the huge fonts.

Your posts are so kooky, they basically take on a huge, multi-color appearance on their own.

That's a good thing. I've said before, I like your posts (generally speaking). But the those massive red letters make me inclined to skip over them.

 

[LC-88]

What the government can do with that data is a lot more scary than what a criminal can do with it. Criminals are not a big deal really... 99.99% of the issues are going to be stolen credit cards, which the consumer is insured against anyway.

Exactly. I'm not worried about hackers, or even real time tracking. It's when i piss the government off for whatever reason in the future. They will be able to reach back and paint any picture they want about my life and activity. "In 2007 he bought three books on subject "X", and he traveled to the following suspicious places in 2012 and 2013. In this 2015 email to one of his high school buddies he said....."

 

[miketd1]

^^^you should be fine as long as you don't buy any 3lb bags of Doritos

 

[RU4Real]

John Oliver's bit is pretty spot on. "E911" is horrifically unreliable, it doesn't work well in many places (and sometimes not at all), and the entire 911 system is pretty much held together with duct tape. It isn't as secure or reliable as people think it is.

This simply isn't true. Well-designed and well-implemented call & dispatch centers work beautifully. Obvious allowances have to be made for how the system performs when it's not put together properly but to say "E911 is horrifically unreliable" simply tells me that you don't know how it works.

 

[iReC89]

Great piece by John Oliver. It would have been better if the person who made the 911 call inside the 911 center tried to order a pizza or post on Facebook using location services. The FCC referenced estimate of saving 10,120 lives annually relates to implementing new systems for improving indoor location accuracy. The discussion in the study about installing new hardware sounds out of touch with what the private sector can do better, faster and for far less with crowd sourcing data. The array of bluetooth sensors used by the DOT to create traffic information used by old school GPS devices is good, but it can't compare to what Google can do with real time feedback from every Google mobile location services user on every road they use.

I still suspect the original photo in this story was a hoax. Even if it wasn't, the conversation is good. Government and the private sector do some of the same things with different rules, different costs and different results. People get upset about the government gathering information useful to the cause of governance and public safety but are mostly acquiescent to the private sector generating similar information on an exponentially larger scale.

The answer to what the data boundaries should be for government may relate to what to we routinely agree to the private sector. We can't expect the government to be efficient and a step ahead if we make everything so difficult for it.

On the 911 story, I would love to see proposals from Google, Apple, app and device makers like Tile, and others who have used crowd sourced data effectively for geolocation. I'd wager that an improved 911 location service could be built better, faster and cheaper with the usual government bureaucrats out of the room. Instead of taxing us on every phone bill, they would also find a way to turn a profit.

 

[miket007]

Most will not support this until some crazy terrorist act unfortunately happens then they'll change there tone smh.......i totally support these types of actions.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Most will not support this until some crazy terrorist act unfortunately happens then they'll change there tone smh.......i totally support these types of actions.

But that's because you're fkn 007 ... and virtually undetectable by man or modern technology.

 

[RU4Real]

The erosion of personal freedom does not give protection in proportion to what is sacrificed.

You pay a price for freedom. It's all about risk management.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Most will not support this until some crazy terrorist act unfortunately happens then they'll change there tone smh.......i totally support these types of actions.

I think you are right. The next time there is a large terrorist attack, people will willingly concede a large amount of personal freedom in the name of greater safety. They will make this irrational decision out of fear, and because of the fact that they are incredibly ill-informed about the risks they face in day to day life.