15 ms·

This is actually pretty terrifying when you follow this to its logical conclusion. You're going after license plates, which are regulated by state governments.

This is actually pretty terrifying when you follow this to its logical conclusion. You're going after license plates, which are regulated by state governments. It's illegal to obfuscate them, so there's no way to conceal your identity like you can with some the CCTV stuff. It's essentially an easy, legal way to keep tabs on your population. As the article pointed out, you can also tie this to all kinds of available data, and start creating profiles for people. This is really scary, scary stuff.

thrownaway2424 10y ago
Driving has never been anonymous. The license plate is readable from a distance for a reason.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  And walking?
  - thrownaway2424 10y ago
    What about it?
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      Facial recognition software.
      - thrownaway2424 10y ago
        Again I'm not really seeing your point. One goes about in public "openly and notoriously" as the legal jargon goes. It is expected that one's face would be recognized.
        Aelinsaar 10y ago
        I really can't stand people who use "Not seeing your point" as a substitute for "Disagree with your point."
        thrownaway2424 10y ago
        I'm actually using it as shorthand for "your sentence fragments do not amount to an argument."
        Aelinsaar 10y ago
        Trust me, that's not what it's shorthand for.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Unless you walk around wearing a license plate around your neck, I'm not sure how it's relevant here.
    - tomtoise 10y ago
      One could argue that you're wearing a license plate 'on' your neck. Facial recognition and that.
      - lozf 10y ago
        Don't forget "Gait DNA"[0] for tracking your movement through a crowd, even when your face can't be seen. [0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6995061.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      I wear my face above my neck, thanks.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Your phone is probably in your pocket.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      I have the choice to leave my phone at home, or take out the battery, or if I'm feeling incredibly paranoid even stick it in a Faraday cage. My face, is my face.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Readable, sure. They provided a way to identify the owners of specific cars without stopping them. But with the advent of digital photography, image recognition, and computerized databases, they do something very different. They make it possible to track everyone passing through a place, and to correlate every sighting of someone to build up a profile of their life. Sure, surveillance isn't novel. But a sufficient quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference. Bulk tracking of everyone in a city is something completely new, and there's good reason to be uncomfortable with it.
  - thrownaway2424 10y ago
    I don't disagree with your facts but I also don't think they lead to your conclusion. One does not expect privacy in public, by definition.
    - baconner 10y ago
      This is clearly true, but legally speaking I think it's time we start reevaluating as a society how far we let this swing. Technology has changed the meaning of no reasonable expectation of privacy dramatically. 100 years ago you couldn't expect not to be overheard or followed (at great cost per individual followed). Today you can't expect not to be recorded and location tracked at all times and it's low cost per person so everyone can be followed and surveiled all the time. We can disagree if this is a net positive or negative to society, but IMO a lot of folks are treating it as if nothing has changed because the core law hasn't changed. That's missing the point - the scale change is very significant.
    - rtkwe 10y ago
      It's the accumulation and correlation of the data that's the problem. At a high enough density you essentially have everyone being followed their entire lives. Formerly if the police wanted to know everywhere that a person visited because they suspected them of crime X they'd have to invest a certain level of resources which means targets had to be chosen judiciously. Now we're approaching a point where they can just trawl everyone's movements looking for anything they like, and as the algorithms get better and the density of things like CCTV and the license plate readers increases it gets easier and easier to follow anyone back in time. IF the police were filled with perfect angels and laws were all perfectly reasonable and just allowing that might approach being ok. Instead we have a police force made of people who do things like harass whistle blowers who reveal corruption or cover ups or people they have personal vendettas against (or unrequited love toward).
- Retric 10y ago
  Someone in the 1930's could write down a plate and with a lot of effort transform that into a name. Passively collecting the names of everyone that happens to go past a camera is qualitatively different.
mowxeo 10y ago
Two important DEFCON talks on the issue: https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html#Davidoff https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl_f0zd-Wjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl_f0zd-Wjg https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-21-archive.html#pukingmonkey https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-21-archive.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43Ti7c11lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43Ti7c11lY
lmkg 10y ago
I agree that this part is scary, but it isn't news. I first heard about license-plate readers back in 2008, and at that point police could already take a wired-up squad car for a cruise through a grocery store parking lot, scanning a couple hundred plates. Onboard software would run the numbers for outstanding warrants or lapsed registrations, and alert the officer. This has already been going on for years. The capacity to mine that data effectively is slightly more recent, but I'm sure the logfiles exist.
- dboreham 10y ago
  I first saw license plate identification by computer in 1982. Just sayin..
mc32 10y ago
Compared to what Google/Apple/Facebook know about you? It's not really that scary. Government is accountable, at least in theory. With private services, you're more or less out of luck, if you want to live a normal life surrounded by technology.
- the_ancient 10y ago
  > Government is accountable that is funny right there.... >With private services, you're more or less out of luck, In a way, but last I checked google nor facebook are legally empowered to Arrest, Put me in a Cage, Raid my Home at 3am, Shoot my dog, Detonate Explosives in my children face or even Kill Me. So yes google violates your privacy, to sell you shit, the government violates your privacy to put you in a cage or kill you. I am more concerned with the latter...
  - mc32 10y ago
    Is that what the vans are doing though? Are they out there to hunt innocent people so they can kill them? Or are they trying to catch people they are looking for already, except more efficiently? In other words are they doing what we have in essence ask them to do for us, by and large?
    - wtetzner 10y ago
      It doesn't matter why they're collecting the information. Once they have it, they have to power to do far worse things with it than Google.
      - mc32 10y ago
        No, I'd say _why_ is the central question. If it's a corrupt city supervisor spying on foes, that's contrary to their purview, if it's to enforce laws, that is under their duties. It's like saying, well, we don't care why facebook collects all that information, they may as well sell it all to any bidder.
tyingq 10y ago
>>It's illegal to obfuscate them, so there's no way to conceal your identity like you can with some the CCTV stuff You can form an LLC in a state that allows for some amount of anonymity, like New Mexico, and then register the vehicle under the LLC's name. Edit: Nothing is fully anonymous, of course, so the government can backtrack it, but they probably don't bother unless there's some specific incident.
- nthj 10y ago
  This seems trivial to circumvent by (1) tying into New Mexico's database or (2) cross-sectioning license plates + facial recognition databases the first time you drive through a traffic light; so trivial that the time and expense of the LLC seems moot.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Having worked in somewhat similar spaces in the past, I doubt that (1) would be implemented, at least for the broad gathering/analytics/etc. I strongly suspect resolving company to person name would only happen manually, and only because of some specific request or incident. As for (2), well, yes...facial recognition is a different problem.
peteretep 10y ago
> This is really scary, scary stuff Perhaps. It's been happening for a decade in the UK though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recogni... > Vehicle movements on UK roads are recorded by a > network of nearly 8000 cameras capturing between 25 > and 30 million ANPR ‘read’ records daily. These > records are stored for up to two years in the > National ANPR Data Centre Generally no effort is made to disguise it. Police cars have the letters ANPR stamped on them in big letters if they're carrying one. The profiling you're worried about happening is explicitly touted as an aim of the UK government effort. The UK approach often appears to be pro-surveillance, and then letting the courts work out what constitutes reasonable usage, a luxury afforded by having such a robust and independent legislature.
kaitai 10y ago
Not to be at all flip... but it's another good reason to bike instead.

thrownaway2424 10y ago

Driving has never been anonymous. The license plate is readable from a distance for a reason.

Aelinsaar 10y ago
And walking?
- thrownaway2424 10y ago
  What about it?
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    Facial recognition software.
    - thrownaway2424 10y ago
      Again I'm not really seeing your point. One goes about in public "openly and notoriously" as the legal jargon goes. It is expected that one's face would be recognized.
      - Aelinsaar 10y ago
        I really can't stand people who use "Not seeing your point" as a substitute for "Disagree with your point."
        thrownaway2424 10y ago
        I'm actually using it as shorthand for "your sentence fragments do not amount to an argument."
        Aelinsaar 10y ago
        Trust me, that's not what it's shorthand for.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Unless you walk around wearing a license plate around your neck, I'm not sure how it's relevant here.
  - tomtoise 10y ago
    One could argue that you're wearing a license plate 'on' your neck. Facial recognition and that.
    - lozf 10y ago
      Don't forget "Gait DNA"[0] for tracking your movement through a crowd, even when your face can't be seen. [0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6995061.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    I wear my face above my neck, thanks.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Your phone is probably in your pocket.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    I have the choice to leave my phone at home, or take out the battery, or if I'm feeling incredibly paranoid even stick it in a Faraday cage. My face, is my face.
Bartweiss 10y ago
Readable, sure. They provided a way to identify the owners of specific cars without stopping them. But with the advent of digital photography, image recognition, and computerized databases, they do something very different. They make it possible to track everyone passing through a place, and to correlate every sighting of someone to build up a profile of their life. Sure, surveillance isn't novel. But a sufficient quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference. Bulk tracking of everyone in a city is something completely new, and there's good reason to be uncomfortable with it.
- thrownaway2424 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your facts but I also don't think they lead to your conclusion. One does not expect privacy in public, by definition.
  - baconner 10y ago
    This is clearly true, but legally speaking I think it's time we start reevaluating as a society how far we let this swing. Technology has changed the meaning of no reasonable expectation of privacy dramatically. 100 years ago you couldn't expect not to be overheard or followed (at great cost per individual followed). Today you can't expect not to be recorded and location tracked at all times and it's low cost per person so everyone can be followed and surveiled all the time. We can disagree if this is a net positive or negative to society, but IMO a lot of folks are treating it as if nothing has changed because the core law hasn't changed. That's missing the point - the scale change is very significant.
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    It's the accumulation and correlation of the data that's the problem. At a high enough density you essentially have everyone being followed their entire lives. Formerly if the police wanted to know everywhere that a person visited because they suspected them of crime X they'd have to invest a certain level of resources which means targets had to be chosen judiciously. Now we're approaching a point where they can just trawl everyone's movements looking for anything they like, and as the algorithms get better and the density of things like CCTV and the license plate readers increases it gets easier and easier to follow anyone back in time. IF the police were filled with perfect angels and laws were all perfectly reasonable and just allowing that might approach being ok. Instead we have a police force made of people who do things like harass whistle blowers who reveal corruption or cover ups or people they have personal vendettas against (or unrequited love toward).
Retric 10y ago
Someone in the 1930's could write down a plate and with a lot of effort transform that into a name. Passively collecting the names of everyone that happens to go past a camera is qualitatively different.

mowxeo 10y ago

Two important DEFCON talks on the issue: https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.html#Davidoff https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-17-archive.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl_f0zd-Wjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl_f0zd-Wjg https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-21-archive.html#pukingmonkey https://www.defcon.org/html/links/dc-archives/dc-21-archive.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43Ti7c11lY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43Ti7c11lY

lmkg 10y ago

I agree that this part is scary, but it isn't news. I first heard about license-plate readers back in 2008, and at that point police could already take a wired-up squad car for a cruise through a grocery store parking lot, scanning a couple hundred plates. Onboard software would run the numbers for outstanding warrants or lapsed registrations, and alert the officer. This has already been going on for years. The capacity to mine that data effectively is slightly more recent, but I'm sure the logfiles exist.

dboreham 10y ago
I first saw license plate identification by computer in 1982. Just sayin..

mc32 10y ago

Compared to what Google/Apple/Facebook know about you? It's not really that scary. Government is accountable, at least in theory. With private services, you're more or less out of luck, if you want to live a normal life surrounded by technology.

the_ancient 10y ago
> Government is accountable that is funny right there.... >With private services, you're more or less out of luck, In a way, but last I checked google nor facebook are legally empowered to Arrest, Put me in a Cage, Raid my Home at 3am, Shoot my dog, Detonate Explosives in my children face or even Kill Me. So yes google violates your privacy, to sell you shit, the government violates your privacy to put you in a cage or kill you. I am more concerned with the latter...
- mc32 10y ago
  Is that what the vans are doing though? Are they out there to hunt innocent people so they can kill them? Or are they trying to catch people they are looking for already, except more efficiently? In other words are they doing what we have in essence ask them to do for us, by and large?
  - wtetzner 10y ago
    It doesn't matter why they're collecting the information. Once they have it, they have to power to do far worse things with it than Google.
    - mc32 10y ago
      No, I'd say _why_ is the central question. If it's a corrupt city supervisor spying on foes, that's contrary to their purview, if it's to enforce laws, that is under their duties. It's like saying, well, we don't care why facebook collects all that information, they may as well sell it all to any bidder.

tyingq 10y ago

>>It's illegal to obfuscate them, so there's no way to conceal your identity like you can with some the CCTV stuff You can form an LLC in a state that allows for some amount of anonymity, like New Mexico, and then register the vehicle under the LLC's name. Edit: Nothing is fully anonymous, of course, so the government can backtrack it, but they probably don't bother unless there's some specific incident.

nthj 10y ago
This seems trivial to circumvent by (1) tying into New Mexico's database or (2) cross-sectioning license plates + facial recognition databases the first time you drive through a traffic light; so trivial that the time and expense of the LLC seems moot.
- tyingq 10y ago
  Having worked in somewhat similar spaces in the past, I doubt that (1) would be implemented, at least for the broad gathering/analytics/etc. I strongly suspect resolving company to person name would only happen manually, and only because of some specific request or incident. As for (2), well, yes...facial recognition is a different problem.

peteretep 10y ago

> This is really scary, scary stuff Perhaps. It's been happening for a decade in the UK though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recognition_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_plate_recogni... > Vehicle movements on UK roads are recorded by a > network of nearly 8000 cameras capturing between 25 > and 30 million ANPR ‘read’ records daily. These > records are stored for up to two years in the > National ANPR Data Centre Generally no effort is made to disguise it. Police cars have the letters ANPR stamped on them in big letters if they're carrying one. The profiling you're worried about happening is explicitly touted as an aim of the UK government effort. The UK approach often appears to be pro-surveillance, and then letting the courts work out what constitutes reasonable usage, a luxury afforded by having such a robust and independent legislature.

kaitai 10y ago

Not to be at all flip... but it's another good reason to bike instead.