17 ms·

> As police cars patrol the city, they ping on license plates associated with the fees. The officer then pulls the driver over and offers them a devil’s bargain

> As police cars patrol the city, they ping on license plates associated with the fees. The officer then pulls the driver over and offers them a devil’s bargain: go to jail, or pay the original fine with an extra 25% processing fee tacked on, all of which goes to Vigilant. So, they're planning to turn the Texas prison system into de facto debtors' prisons, and the Texas police system into de facto highwaymen. One more factor to add to the giant pile of reasons for ill-will that the US state and Federal governments have been collecting. That pile can't get much taller without toppling, and while I do greatly hope the blowback happens through the democratic process, that process is pretty severely damaged and this looks less and less likely every year.

mindslight 11y ago
I'd really like to see some state attempt step up and tackle totalitarianism organically. In this case, imagine a registrar of convenience (as I believe South Dakota is often used for Ruins Views), that issues eink-based license plates that generate a new identifier every few miles. Only the registrar could decode those nonces into the long-term vehicle record, with an accompanying legal process and technical audit trail. (Of course such technical workarounds do nothing to fix the ultimate problem of corruption, it only releases the pressure a bit. Unfortunately the logical foundation of this country is based on outrunning tyranny, and in the age of abundance complexity knows no bounds. So to avoid collapse we really need every approach we can fathom)
- X-Istence 11y ago
  If there is some algorithm to define what the next number is going to be, the state can share that with the company in order to provide "services"...
  - mindslight 11y ago
    The core of the idea relies on developing one sane state. But it could be rural (leaders not so corrupted by economic power) and low-population (easier to effect change). If we want to prevent the collapse of our broken society, we must create institutions that usurp the existing broken ones. License plate tracking cannot be solved by private organization (/local "exit") alone, as the problem stems from the government mandated tracking placards.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    More likely the state would simply share the already-disambiguated data.
- bmelton 11y ago
  > I'd really like to see some state attempt step up and tackle totalitarianism organically. The state closest to what you're looking for, I suspect, is New Hampshire. I don't know how much of it is due to their Free Stater influence or what, but among other things, they have relatively low burdens for living a legal life. There are some stupid laws (namely, not being able to pull backward into certain types of parking spots), but for the most part, they take their "Live Free or Die" motto pretty seriously. If they could only fix the weather...
  - mindslight 11y ago
    I'm personally lukewarm on NH. My general take is that their foundation of freedom heavily skews towards dismantling local organization while tacitly approving larger power concentrations. I'd obviously welcome any pushback against USG or private surveillance, it just feels more likely they'll destroy more municipal services. While everyone having a generator is self-reliant and robust, it's also indicative of infrastructure collapse.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      I've found the contrary to be more true. They do have, perhaps, a different view of what the local legislature ought to look like than most, in that the legislators are only paid $200 per two year term (to keep it from being a career position), but they also have the best representation in the nation, as each legislator only has ~3200 constituents. Compared to California's ~450,000 constituents per legislator, it's much, much easier to imagine getting a lunch date with your lawmakers so that your ideas are heard. Meanwhile, on infrastructure, New Hampshire has a better rating than the national average. On top of that, there's no sales tax, no income tax (though a higher than average property tax probably makes up some of the difference), has the highest overall quality of living, is the second healthiest state in the union, the most livable, the safest, and has the lowest poverty rate in America. Certainly, everywhere has its perks and pitfalls, but if totalitarianism is what you're looking to escape, New Hampshire considers mandatory seat belt laws too authoritarian to pass.
      - 11y ago
- mjevans 11y ago
  How about just making it so that the plates have to be on the vehicle and readable when it is stopped for inspection. This would allow most of the good uses, while preventing drive-by surveillance.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Hit-and-run. And even if it isn't statistically important, that will be the argument. The entropy required by nonce plates might also be prohibitive (a witness will have a hard time memorizing 20 digits), but a clever encoding should make the start or end of the number be significant enough when combined with the date.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  At a minimum, the state would use insurance requirements to foil this (by requiring declared residents to buy insurance for the state of residence and not allowing that insurance to be tied to an out of state vehicle).
  - mindslight 11y ago
    People seem to "get away" with it for ruins views, and rental companies generally have convenient ownership of their vehicles (eg a surplus of rental cars from Arizona, Penske trucks from Indiana). The only place I've heard of people actually having issues with longer-term out-of-state registration is Mordor^wDC.
joesmo 11y ago
The pile will topple, you're right. It's just a matter of how. Even people I respect a lot like Radley Balko are not on the right page about fixing the current problems with police. He talks a lot about community policing, literal foot patrols (vs. cars), etc. And that'd be all great, except our society is way beyond that. Maybe such tactics would have worked in the '60's, before the relationship between citizens and police became one of either hate or ignorance. At this point, without dismantling a huge part of the police and corrections system (because calling it "criminal justice" is just plain absurd) nothing will change. But that can still happen through the democratic process. I hope ...
jdmichal 11y ago
I'd like to point out that the Texas law cited allows on-the-spot collection of fines to extinguish existent warrants [0]. That is, without this law, the options would formally be "be detained" and "be detained" [1]. This is strictly providing additional options. [0] The name used by the EFF is accurate but somewhat incomplete; these would be capias pro fine, which is a specific subset related to failing to comply with judgements. [1] I won't indulge the EFF's language of Monopoly-style "go to jail" here, as that's a pretty loose interpretation. You will be detained to appear before a judge in order to plead your case.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  re [1]: technically yes, practically no. You're going to be detained to appear in front of a judge who is going to say 'you have outstanding unpaid court fines - you can pay them now or be subject to imprisonment'. All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe. And the amount. +25% to pay it by the side of the road.
    - seanp2k2 11y ago
      Wonder what court fees would be for this. There's also sometimes the threat of impound which isn't cheap.
      - brandonmenc 11y ago
        True. When I was very young and stupid, I had a car impounded for unpaid parking tickets after being pulled over for a burnt out tail light. I would have gladly accepted a 25% fee for the option to pay right then and there to avoid the impound procedure. It would've cost less than what the court and impound yard charged me for letting it escalate that far. And not being able to pay the 25% fee, what would have normally happened, would have happened.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>giant pile of reasons for ill-will that the US state and Federal governments have been collecting. Lets please not attack the other states because of Texan shenanigans. The fifty states are each semi-autonomous and as such can implement programs like this. This is an exception, not the norm. >blowback happens through the democratic process Why should it? Maybe Texans who work hard and pay their fines want the scofflaws to be caught like this? Democracy doesn't mean "things I like." It often means "things the average voter likes." Maybe this is "ill will" to you, but to a red state with a strong law and order culture to it, it may not be very controversial at all. You can't clamor for states rights in Texas, but also expect liberal soft-on-crime values. All politics is local. Also, these people have capias warrants out for them at the time of this collection. Deadbeats who don't pay child support, ignore a civil judgements, ignore fines, etc get these. I don't really see a problem with this. If there's abuse here, it lies with how capias warrants are given out, not the technology used to enforce them. Why aren't we addressing the root issue here? Is there really an issue here other than SJW wankering?
- JadeNB 11y ago
  > Democracy doesn't mean "things I like." It often means "things the average voter likes." That seems like a misrepresentation of the post. jrandomh didn't say "this is undemocratic", but rather (paraphrasing) "this generates ill will". Hoping that mass ill will will (not a typo …) lead to change is not anti-democratic; it is exactly the idea of democracy.
- mywittyname 11y ago
  > Why aren't we addressing the root issue here? You and I disagree on the root of the issue. The ease of enforcement is going to encourage the already despicable behavior of imposing fines that people aren't able to pay. This technology isn't going to effect middle class people that get the occasional speeding ticket. This is going to ensure that people who couldn't afford the fine are caught and fined again, then thrown in jail. What should happen is that suspects should not be forced to pay the court costs associated with trying them. This eliminates the perverse incentives associated with this technology.
sithadmin 11y ago
> they're planning to turn the Texas prison system into de facto debtors' prisons Whoa there, hold on a second. That's not what's going on at all. The plates are being run to detect if the car's owner has outstanding court fines, which are not akin to a simple debt. These are (probably) justified, punitive fees imposed on an individual for some kind of offense against the law (and by extension, the public). It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something. That said, this behavior is still troubling insofar as it is likely to disproportionately result in the targeting and punishment of the poor, which is in itself a rather problematic issue. And it's certainly troubling that the additional fee being imposed to process payment for the fines collected is far above what seems to be (at a glance, anyway) a reasonable margin for operating costs.
- Vraxx 11y ago
  I think the common complaint here is that there are plenty of "crimes" that are committed on a daily basis like minor speeding (going 1-5 mph over the speed limit), jaywalking, etc, that are nearly impossible to entirely enforce. This gives police the ability to selectively enforce said laws simply because they can't totally enforce it. As you noted this can be used to punish the poor far more than others. The combination of all of these factors and the ability to track these "offenders" down more easily, it isn't a far shot from what the parent poster was saying by comparing it to a debtors' prison.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Worth asking: Why do they punish the poor more so than others? I really doubt it's because those in poverty give fewer fucks about following traffic law. I doubt it's a matter of education since you're supposed to demonstrate that minimum competence before you get a license anyways, and if you're not, we've found the problem. What's left?
    - masterzora 11y ago
      I believe you're looking at the wrong part of the equation. It's not about the relative rates of traffic violations among the poor vs everyone else; it's about the relative impact the same fine has. If you have comfortable amounts of wealth and/or income and get hit with a $500 fine you might be annoyed but you can pay it and go on your way. But for the poor it's not so simple. First, that $500 represents a much larger burden. Even if they do scrape together the money to actually pay the fine, it might mean other bills would have to go unpaid, for example. And if they don't or can't get the money to pay the fine, those outstanding fines can get additional fees tacked on like Vigilant's 25%. So it's not about seeking out the poor disproportionately more than the rich; it's about how the same punishment is actually more punishing.
finid 11y ago
If you're expecting that pile to topple any time soon or if ever, I think you're going to be very disappointed. You see, the modern police state has learned from the mistakes of Stazi, and technology has made the police-state surveillance very seamless. Most citizens don't even realize what's going on, and when told, they have too much to worry about. That their's no external force working against the interests of our system makes it all the more hopeless. Seat back, folks, and enjoy whatever freedom you have now.
- dh997 11y ago
  Waiting for the cost to reduce, performance and battery tech of semiautonomous drones to improve to the point where crowdfunded watchdog groups could begin to afford to follow every police officer with a camera, live streaming and recording them almost all the time while on duty. It could be possible, at least start off with problem cops while they're patrolling on foot. I think that's one of the most effective ways to hold them accountable and provide a direct, counterveiling force against pervasive, unbridled hubris that most resembles a mafia. Not like confrontational YouTubers, but change the thinking to "we're watching you."
- mindslight 11y ago
  The majority is fine with surveillance, because the majority believes it will decide the usage of the surveillance. And to a first approximation, it's correct. The collapse occurs because of the resulting top-down groupthink. There are plenty of external forces working against our system, just on the time scale of several generations.
  - finid 11y ago
    > The majority is fine with surveillance, because the majority believes it will decide the usage of the surveillance. And to a first approximation, it's correct. Wishful thinking. Just keep dreaming. If by "first approximation" you're referring to voting, then, yes, majority gets to vote their favored lawmaker into office. However, because of political lobbying, the laws that are passed will not necessarily be in the interest of the majority.

mindslight 11y ago

I'd really like to see some state attempt step up and tackle totalitarianism organically. In this case, imagine a registrar of convenience (as I believe South Dakota is often used for Ruins Views), that issues eink-based license plates that generate a new identifier every few miles. Only the registrar could decode those nonces into the long-term vehicle record, with an accompanying legal process and technical audit trail. (Of course such technical workarounds do nothing to fix the ultimate problem of corruption, it only releases the pressure a bit. Unfortunately the logical foundation of this country is based on outrunning tyranny, and in the age of abundance complexity knows no bounds. So to avoid collapse we really need every approach we can fathom)

X-Istence 11y ago
If there is some algorithm to define what the next number is going to be, the state can share that with the company in order to provide "services"...
- mindslight 11y ago
  The core of the idea relies on developing one sane state. But it could be rural (leaders not so corrupted by economic power) and low-population (easier to effect change). If we want to prevent the collapse of our broken society, we must create institutions that usurp the existing broken ones. License plate tracking cannot be solved by private organization (/local "exit") alone, as the problem stems from the government mandated tracking placards.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  More likely the state would simply share the already-disambiguated data.
bmelton 11y ago
> I'd really like to see some state attempt step up and tackle totalitarianism organically. The state closest to what you're looking for, I suspect, is New Hampshire. I don't know how much of it is due to their Free Stater influence or what, but among other things, they have relatively low burdens for living a legal life. There are some stupid laws (namely, not being able to pull backward into certain types of parking spots), but for the most part, they take their "Live Free or Die" motto pretty seriously. If they could only fix the weather...
- mindslight 11y ago
  I'm personally lukewarm on NH. My general take is that their foundation of freedom heavily skews towards dismantling local organization while tacitly approving larger power concentrations. I'd obviously welcome any pushback against USG or private surveillance, it just feels more likely they'll destroy more municipal services. While everyone having a generator is self-reliant and robust, it's also indicative of infrastructure collapse.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    I've found the contrary to be more true. They do have, perhaps, a different view of what the local legislature ought to look like than most, in that the legislators are only paid $200 per two year term (to keep it from being a career position), but they also have the best representation in the nation, as each legislator only has ~3200 constituents. Compared to California's ~450,000 constituents per legislator, it's much, much easier to imagine getting a lunch date with your lawmakers so that your ideas are heard. Meanwhile, on infrastructure, New Hampshire has a better rating than the national average. On top of that, there's no sales tax, no income tax (though a higher than average property tax probably makes up some of the difference), has the highest overall quality of living, is the second healthiest state in the union, the most livable, the safest, and has the lowest poverty rate in America. Certainly, everywhere has its perks and pitfalls, but if totalitarianism is what you're looking to escape, New Hampshire considers mandatory seat belt laws too authoritarian to pass.
    - 11y ago
mjevans 11y ago
How about just making it so that the plates have to be on the vehicle and readable when it is stopped for inspection. This would allow most of the good uses, while preventing drive-by surveillance.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 11y ago
  Hit-and-run. And even if it isn't statistically important, that will be the argument. The entropy required by nonce plates might also be prohibitive (a witness will have a hard time memorizing 20 digits), but a clever encoding should make the start or end of the number be significant enough when combined with the date.
maxerickson 11y ago
At a minimum, the state would use insurance requirements to foil this (by requiring declared residents to buy insurance for the state of residence and not allowing that insurance to be tied to an out of state vehicle).
- mindslight 11y ago
  People seem to "get away" with it for ruins views, and rental companies generally have convenient ownership of their vehicles (eg a surplus of rental cars from Arizona, Penske trucks from Indiana). The only place I've heard of people actually having issues with longer-term out-of-state registration is Mordor^wDC.

joesmo 11y ago

The pile will topple, you're right. It's just a matter of how. Even people I respect a lot like Radley Balko are not on the right page about fixing the current problems with police. He talks a lot about community policing, literal foot patrols (vs. cars), etc. And that'd be all great, except our society is way beyond that. Maybe such tactics would have worked in the '60's, before the relationship between citizens and police became one of either hate or ignorance. At this point, without dismantling a huge part of the police and corrections system (because calling it "criminal justice" is just plain absurd) nothing will change. But that can still happen through the democratic process. I hope ...

jdmichal 11y ago

I'd like to point out that the Texas law cited allows on-the-spot collection of fines to extinguish existent warrants [0]. That is, without this law, the options would formally be "be detained" and "be detained" [1]. This is strictly providing additional options. [0] The name used by the EFF is accurate but somewhat incomplete; these would be capias pro fine, which is a specific subset related to failing to comply with judgements. [1] I won't indulge the EFF's language of Monopoly-style "go to jail" here, as that's a pretty loose interpretation. You will be detained to appear before a judge in order to plead your case.

FireBeyond 11y ago
re [1]: technically yes, practically no. You're going to be detained to appear in front of a judge who is going to say 'you have outstanding unpaid court fines - you can pay them now or be subject to imprisonment'. All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe. And the amount. +25% to pay it by the side of the road.
  - seanp2k2 11y ago
    Wonder what court fees would be for this. There's also sometimes the threat of impound which isn't cheap.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      True. When I was very young and stupid, I had a car impounded for unpaid parking tickets after being pulled over for a burnt out tail light. I would have gladly accepted a 25% fee for the option to pay right then and there to avoid the impound procedure. It would've cost less than what the court and impound yard charged me for letting it escalate that far. And not being able to pay the 25% fee, what would have normally happened, would have happened.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>giant pile of reasons for ill-will that the US state and Federal governments have been collecting. Lets please not attack the other states because of Texan shenanigans. The fifty states are each semi-autonomous and as such can implement programs like this. This is an exception, not the norm. >blowback happens through the democratic process Why should it? Maybe Texans who work hard and pay their fines want the scofflaws to be caught like this? Democracy doesn't mean "things I like." It often means "things the average voter likes." Maybe this is "ill will" to you, but to a red state with a strong law and order culture to it, it may not be very controversial at all. You can't clamor for states rights in Texas, but also expect liberal soft-on-crime values. All politics is local. Also, these people have capias warrants out for them at the time of this collection. Deadbeats who don't pay child support, ignore a civil judgements, ignore fines, etc get these. I don't really see a problem with this. If there's abuse here, it lies with how capias warrants are given out, not the technology used to enforce them. Why aren't we addressing the root issue here? Is there really an issue here other than SJW wankering?

JadeNB 11y ago
> Democracy doesn't mean "things I like." It often means "things the average voter likes." That seems like a misrepresentation of the post. jrandomh didn't say "this is undemocratic", but rather (paraphrasing) "this generates ill will". Hoping that mass ill will will (not a typo …) lead to change is not anti-democratic; it is exactly the idea of democracy.
mywittyname 11y ago
> Why aren't we addressing the root issue here? You and I disagree on the root of the issue. The ease of enforcement is going to encourage the already despicable behavior of imposing fines that people aren't able to pay. This technology isn't going to effect middle class people that get the occasional speeding ticket. This is going to ensure that people who couldn't afford the fine are caught and fined again, then thrown in jail. What should happen is that suspects should not be forced to pay the court costs associated with trying them. This eliminates the perverse incentives associated with this technology.

sithadmin 11y ago

> they're planning to turn the Texas prison system into de facto debtors' prisons Whoa there, hold on a second. That's not what's going on at all. The plates are being run to detect if the car's owner has outstanding court fines, which are not akin to a simple debt. These are (probably) justified, punitive fees imposed on an individual for some kind of offense against the law (and by extension, the public). It's not the case that the police are extorting people that are behind on their rent/credit card payments or something. That said, this behavior is still troubling insofar as it is likely to disproportionately result in the targeting and punishment of the poor, which is in itself a rather problematic issue. And it's certainly troubling that the additional fee being imposed to process payment for the fines collected is far above what seems to be (at a glance, anyway) a reasonable margin for operating costs.

Vraxx 11y ago
I think the common complaint here is that there are plenty of "crimes" that are committed on a daily basis like minor speeding (going 1-5 mph over the speed limit), jaywalking, etc, that are nearly impossible to entirely enforce. This gives police the ability to selectively enforce said laws simply because they can't totally enforce it. As you noted this can be used to punish the poor far more than others. The combination of all of these factors and the ability to track these "offenders" down more easily, it isn't a far shot from what the parent poster was saying by comparing it to a debtors' prison.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Worth asking: Why do they punish the poor more so than others? I really doubt it's because those in poverty give fewer fucks about following traffic law. I doubt it's a matter of education since you're supposed to demonstrate that minimum competence before you get a license anyways, and if you're not, we've found the problem. What's left?
  - masterzora 11y ago
    I believe you're looking at the wrong part of the equation. It's not about the relative rates of traffic violations among the poor vs everyone else; it's about the relative impact the same fine has. If you have comfortable amounts of wealth and/or income and get hit with a $500 fine you might be annoyed but you can pay it and go on your way. But for the poor it's not so simple. First, that $500 represents a much larger burden. Even if they do scrape together the money to actually pay the fine, it might mean other bills would have to go unpaid, for example. And if they don't or can't get the money to pay the fine, those outstanding fines can get additional fees tacked on like Vigilant's 25%. So it's not about seeking out the poor disproportionately more than the rich; it's about how the same punishment is actually more punishing.

finid 11y ago

If you're expecting that pile to topple any time soon or if ever, I think you're going to be very disappointed. You see, the modern police state has learned from the mistakes of Stazi, and technology has made the police-state surveillance very seamless. Most citizens don't even realize what's going on, and when told, they have too much to worry about. That their's no external force working against the interests of our system makes it all the more hopeless. Seat back, folks, and enjoy whatever freedom you have now.

dh997 11y ago
Waiting for the cost to reduce, performance and battery tech of semiautonomous drones to improve to the point where crowdfunded watchdog groups could begin to afford to follow every police officer with a camera, live streaming and recording them almost all the time while on duty. It could be possible, at least start off with problem cops while they're patrolling on foot. I think that's one of the most effective ways to hold them accountable and provide a direct, counterveiling force against pervasive, unbridled hubris that most resembles a mafia. Not like confrontational YouTubers, but change the thinking to "we're watching you."
mindslight 11y ago
The majority is fine with surveillance, because the majority believes it will decide the usage of the surveillance. And to a first approximation, it's correct. The collapse occurs because of the resulting top-down groupthink. There are plenty of external forces working against our system, just on the time scale of several generations.
- finid 11y ago
  > The majority is fine with surveillance, because the majority believes it will decide the usage of the surveillance. And to a first approximation, it's correct. Wishful thinking. Just keep dreaming. If by "first approximation" you're referring to voting, then, yes, majority gets to vote their favored lawmaker into office. However, because of political lobbying, the laws that are passed will not necessarily be in the interest of the majority.