3 ms·

Wasn't there a Supreme Court case a while ago that ruled it illegal for the government to put a tracking device on your car? Given this recognition technology,

by kd5bjo 9y ago

Wasn't there a Supreme Court case a while ago that ruled it illegal for the government to put a tracking device on your car? Given this recognition technology, could someone challenge the visible license plate requirement as an illegal tracking device?

tehlike 9y ago
I think eff is doing exactly that: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/california-senate-hear-effs-license-plate-cover-bill https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/california-senate-hear... Is among many. Eff challenges state and local law enforcement in court for their use of automated license place readers.
SeanBoocock 9y ago
That would be United States v. Jones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
Clubber 9y ago
Plate scanning is against the spirit of the law; it's a workaround for not being able to place a tracking device on your car. Unfortunately, since your car is in a public place, and your plates are in the open, I don't think place scanning will be ruled unconstitutional. Of course congress could always pass a law making it illegal, but both our major parties have authoritarian with regards to privacy.
- azernik 9y ago
  The Supreme Court actually has in the past ruled that a technology that is cheap and can be applied without public knowledge is constitutionally different from direct observation. See e.g. United States v. Jones, which ruled that a GPS device placed under a valid warrant could not be used to continue tracking a person outside of the scope of the warrant. "Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben[15] began his argument for the United States by noting that information revealed to the world (i.e. movement on a public road) is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.[16] Dreeben cited United States v. Knotts as an example where police were allowed to use a device known as a "beeper" that allows the tracking of a car from a short distance away.[16] Chief Justice Roberts distinguished the current case from Knotts, saying that using a beeper still took "a lot of work" whereas a GPS device allows the police to "sit back in the station ... and push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is."[17]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
- leereeves 9y ago
  > Unfortunately, since your car is in a public place, and your plates are in the open, I don't think place scanning will be ruled unconstitutional. The question GP asked was a bit different: > could someone challenge the visible license plate requirement as an illegal tracking device? In other words, in a world where plate scanning is ubiqitous, have license plates become a tracking device? And if they are a tracking device, is requiring them unconstitutional?
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Oh, that makes it more interesting. A workaround to that (thought not as effective) would be face scanning. It wouldn't be as effective because I would imagine it would be more difficult to get a consistent scan of an object inside a car.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by kd5bjo 9y ago

tehlike 9y ago

I think eff is doing exactly that: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/california-senate-hear-effs-license-plate-cover-bill https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/california-senate-hear... Is among many. Eff challenges state and local law enforcement in court for their use of automated license place readers.

SeanBoocock 9y ago

That would be United States v. Jones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)

Clubber 9y ago

Plate scanning is against the spirit of the law; it's a workaround for not being able to place a tracking device on your car. Unfortunately, since your car is in a public place, and your plates are in the open, I don't think place scanning will be ruled unconstitutional. Of course congress could always pass a law making it illegal, but both our major parties have authoritarian with regards to privacy.

azernik 9y ago
The Supreme Court actually has in the past ruled that a technology that is cheap and can be applied without public knowledge is constitutionally different from direct observation. See e.g. United States v. Jones, which ruled that a GPS device placed under a valid warrant could not be used to continue tracking a person outside of the scope of the warrant. "Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben[15] began his argument for the United States by noting that information revealed to the world (i.e. movement on a public road) is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.[16] Dreeben cited United States v. Knotts as an example where police were allowed to use a device known as a "beeper" that allows the tracking of a car from a short distance away.[16] Chief Justice Roberts distinguished the current case from Knotts, saying that using a beeper still took "a lot of work" whereas a GPS device allows the police to "sit back in the station ... and push a button whenever they want to find out where the car is."[17]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
leereeves 9y ago
> Unfortunately, since your car is in a public place, and your plates are in the open, I don't think place scanning will be ruled unconstitutional. The question GP asked was a bit different: > could someone challenge the visible license plate requirement as an illegal tracking device? In other words, in a world where plate scanning is ubiqitous, have license plates become a tracking device? And if they are a tracking device, is requiring them unconstitutional?
- Clubber 9y ago
  Oh, that makes it more interesting. A workaround to that (thought not as effective) would be face scanning. It wouldn't be as effective because I would imagine it would be more difficult to get a consistent scan of an object inside a car.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]