6 ms·

I don’t know about commonly, but the law mentioned in the article you cite carved out an exception for private investigators, so... I’m not excited about licen

by zamfi 6y ago

I don’t know about commonly, but the law mentioned in the article you cite carved out an exception for private investigators, so... I’m not excited about license plate tracking either, but I have different expectations of the data I leak by going about town, compared with the complete personal information that I must give to a state agency (on top of paying them, on top of them receiving state funding) to have the privilege of going (driving, I guess) about town.

giantg2 6y ago
The article has a clear bias towards vilifying the release of the data and misleads you with their use of the word "exception". They are not truly excepted from the law, rather they are on a list of approved actors/purposes. This section on PIs dictates that they can only access this information for DPPA approved reasons, and providing the location of a person without it being related to one of the approves uses (like that stalker) is illegal, so... They use machine learning with your license plate data so that they can predict where your home address, where you work, home of people you associate with, etc. What expectations do you have with the DMV? They didn't break any laws or privacy policies. Was it just an assumption you made?
- giantg2 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted?
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    Being allowed by the law to do something bad does not make it right, it just shows the law is bad. Selling private data is bad, no matter how legal it is, in most of the world. See GDPR as an example.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Your argument assumes that selling data is bad. What supports your position? Edit: in the context of the CA DMV releasing data under the DPPA law.
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        Data is personal property that is being handled without consent and without regard for social problems. There needs to be a hard stop put towards those practices.
        giantg2 6y ago
        In general I would agree, but how does that apply to the to the scenario we are discussing which is the CA DMV under the DPPA?
        HarryHirsch 6y ago
        These data were collected to ensure road safety. Anything unrelated to road safety is taboo. No enforcement of immigration, no debt collection, no enabling of stalking, especially no aggregation with other data sources.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Actually that's only part of their intended use. The data is also used to collect tax (registration) and maintain records of ownership (titling). Many states also use this information to register, or solicit the individual to register, to vote. Law enforcement also uses this data for enforcing all manners of law when they look up a person to question or cite, not just immigration. Since drivers' licenses are used for identification, you can see that they are used on many government forms such as tax returns or background checks. Along these lines, the only way to ensure the government will not use your data would be to prevent the government from collecting and storing it (rough paraphrase from Snowden). But if you prevent the collection of the basic data referenced in the article, then how do you provide the same benefits to society that the systems do today? The issues you have seem not to be about the state releasing records but rather with how the government uses the data. The basic information referenced in the article is also available in other country's systems to many of the same organizations authorized under the DPPA. Given the system is also about titling and registration, the access by debt collectors would be warranted, especially if it is dealing with a vehicle. How exactly is this system enabling stalking given the protections of the DPPA? Do you have any examples of countries that don't aggregate data for government use and don't allow PIs to search many kinds of official documents? What system do you see that would replace the current one and maintain all the societal benefits but somehow increase privacy?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by zamfi 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

The article has a clear bias towards vilifying the release of the data and misleads you with their use of the word "exception". They are not truly excepted from the law, rather they are on a list of approved actors/purposes. This section on PIs dictates that they can only access this information for DPPA approved reasons, and providing the location of a person without it being related to one of the approves uses (like that stalker) is illegal, so... They use machine learning with your license plate data so that they can predict where your home address, where you work, home of people you associate with, etc. What expectations do you have with the DMV? They didn't break any laws or privacy policies. Was it just an assumption you made?

giantg2 6y ago
Why is this downvoted?
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  Being allowed by the law to do something bad does not make it right, it just shows the law is bad. Selling private data is bad, no matter how legal it is, in most of the world. See GDPR as an example.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Your argument assumes that selling data is bad. What supports your position? Edit: in the context of the CA DMV releasing data under the DPPA law.
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      Data is personal property that is being handled without consent and without regard for social problems. There needs to be a hard stop put towards those practices.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        In general I would agree, but how does that apply to the to the scenario we are discussing which is the CA DMV under the DPPA?
        HarryHirsch 6y ago
        These data were collected to ensure road safety. Anything unrelated to road safety is taboo. No enforcement of immigration, no debt collection, no enabling of stalking, especially no aggregation with other data sources.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Actually that's only part of their intended use. The data is also used to collect tax (registration) and maintain records of ownership (titling). Many states also use this information to register, or solicit the individual to register, to vote. Law enforcement also uses this data for enforcing all manners of law when they look up a person to question or cite, not just immigration. Since drivers' licenses are used for identification, you can see that they are used on many government forms such as tax returns or background checks. Along these lines, the only way to ensure the government will not use your data would be to prevent the government from collecting and storing it (rough paraphrase from Snowden). But if you prevent the collection of the basic data referenced in the article, then how do you provide the same benefits to society that the systems do today? The issues you have seem not to be about the state releasing records but rather with how the government uses the data. The basic information referenced in the article is also available in other country's systems to many of the same organizations authorized under the DPPA. Given the system is also about titling and registration, the access by debt collectors would be warranted, especially if it is dealing with a vehicle. How exactly is this system enabling stalking given the protections of the DPPA? Do you have any examples of countries that don't aggregate data for government use and don't allow PIs to search many kinds of official documents? What system do you see that would replace the current one and maintain all the societal benefits but somehow increase privacy?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]