3 ms·

Los Angeles Just Proposed the Worst Use of License Plate Reader Data in History

15 points by impostervt 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago
That's why such technology should not be deployed in the first place. The possibilities for abuse are endless and the upsides limited.
- hobs 11y ago
  And pretty much everyone in power knew that. This is just the first of many encroaching actions, lets see if they just call this "metadata" and attempt to keep it legal. I am not anti-government, but you are completely right, you cannot ever give the state these types of tools or they will use them en-masse against their citizens. Never underestimate the churlishness of a politician looking for a scapegoat, they know that a large portion of the population will just roll over as it only targets "bad people".
  - rayiner 11y ago
    You don't have to call it "metadata." It's publicly observable information.
    - bediger4000 11y ago
      Stipulated, counselor. However, this is analgous to the traffic light camera situation. In the traffic light camera situation, we have 100% enforcement of some law or traffic rule that previously, we had less than 1% enforcement. Yet the fine for running a red light remains the same. The fine was previously rather punative, because we, as a society, had to compensate for the small number of enforcers we could afford. That is, any given red-light-runner would stand a very small chance of paying the fine, so we, as a society, judged that an extremely punative fine was the best way of enforcing - you won't get caught very often, but if you do get caught, yipes! that's a big ticket. It's quite within the realm of the law to set and enforce punative fines for running a red light, but as we've seen, the whole of morality in not contained within the law. Red light cameras are almost universally loathed and given a chance, electorates will vote them out. Similarly, license plates were nominally public, but only because they couldn't be monitored nearly 100% of the time automically. In the aggregate, monitoring license plates becomes quite a bit more theatening to liberty than the very occasional check by the small number of enforcers. As Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own". You'd be wise to remember that.
      - greenyoda 11y ago
        Traffic light cameras are used to enforce a law - it's illegal to run a red light. Merely driving through an area known for prostitution does not violate any laws. (Unless these areas are totally deserted, people live and work there, and may drive through to reach adjacent areas.) If the government thinks prostitution is a problem, it could enforce prostitution laws without harassing innocent citizens.

15 points by impostervt 11y ago

That's why such technology should not be deployed in the first place. The possibilities for abuse are endless and the upsides limited.

hobs 11y ago
And pretty much everyone in power knew that. This is just the first of many encroaching actions, lets see if they just call this "metadata" and attempt to keep it legal. I am not anti-government, but you are completely right, you cannot ever give the state these types of tools or they will use them en-masse against their citizens. Never underestimate the churlishness of a politician looking for a scapegoat, they know that a large portion of the population will just roll over as it only targets "bad people".
- rayiner 11y ago
  You don't have to call it "metadata." It's publicly observable information.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    Stipulated, counselor. However, this is analgous to the traffic light camera situation. In the traffic light camera situation, we have 100% enforcement of some law or traffic rule that previously, we had less than 1% enforcement. Yet the fine for running a red light remains the same. The fine was previously rather punative, because we, as a society, had to compensate for the small number of enforcers we could afford. That is, any given red-light-runner would stand a very small chance of paying the fine, so we, as a society, judged that an extremely punative fine was the best way of enforcing - you won't get caught very often, but if you do get caught, yipes! that's a big ticket. It's quite within the realm of the law to set and enforce punative fines for running a red light, but as we've seen, the whole of morality in not contained within the law. Red light cameras are almost universally loathed and given a chance, electorates will vote them out. Similarly, license plates were nominally public, but only because they couldn't be monitored nearly 100% of the time automically. In the aggregate, monitoring license plates becomes quite a bit more theatening to liberty than the very occasional check by the small number of enforcers. As Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own". You'd be wise to remember that.
    - greenyoda 11y ago
      Traffic light cameras are used to enforce a law - it's illegal to run a red light. Merely driving through an area known for prostitution does not violate any laws. (Unless these areas are totally deserted, people live and work there, and may drive through to reach adjacent areas.) If the government thinks prostitution is a problem, it could enforce prostitution laws without harassing innocent citizens.