7 ms·

The danger of license plate readers in post-Roe America

43 points by arunbahl 4y ago

major505 4y ago
Its a danger to anyone who values its own privacy.
- superkuh 4y ago
  Yep. It's been nice to see a new subset of the population realize the dangers of pervasive surveillance and object to those they can live without. But what about the real dangers people don't want to think about because they're so useful? It's pretty likely you carry a cell phone everywhere you go and it's always by you. They are literally tracking devices. It doesn't matter what software you run on the userspace computer on your phone. The cell modem you don't legally control will always be broadcasting beacons and the basestations with their shared accurate clocks are going to be multi-laterating your position down <100m. In the USA they're keeping this data for 2-5 years. And they're going to continue "anonymizing" this data that shows you going to work and home over and over for years by removing names and then selling the raw location data to companies which then sell it to government and special interest groups which de-anonymize it easily. The only real privacy is turning off your cell phone radio.
- devmunchies 4y ago
  right, either you (1) value privacy and don't believe readers are ethical, or (2) you think a loss of some freedom to curb criminal activity is permissible. The way the title uses "danger" frames criminal activity as a good thing as long as it's an activity you agree with. It should instead be a general call for privacy protections, not a selective call.
danschumann 4y ago
This should fall under a reasonable right to privacy. They should need to get a warrant for a specific crime to search for specific plates, not blanket access to search all and contrive crimes stridently after the fact.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bwanab 4y ago
  You mean, like, actually respect the 4th Amendment?
  - staticautomatic 4y ago
    Except the 4th amendment isn’t an unqualified right. Abortion needs its own amendment.
    - nullfield 4y ago
      See it’s funny: while one can argue about “unreasonable”, perhaps, the very clear words “shall not be violated” seem pretty unqualified-but people don’t like he very clear words “shall not be infringed” either so :shrug: Given that this should fall into the few relationships that have historically been treated as sacrosanct-a man and his priest, doctor, and counsel/attorney-it’ll be a hard uphill climb to make a case for investigation into/prevention of medical care decisions not being an unreasonable search or unreasonable seizure. Then again IANAL, so again who knows what fun reasoning lawyers will come up with :shrug-again: 4th: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
      - staticautomatic 4y ago
        You should consider reading some supreme court case law if you want to know how “unreasonable” has typically been interpreted.
      - snapplebobapple 4y ago
        Your opinion presupposes abortion is a medical procedure and not a murder and ever larger percentages of the population would disagree with that categorization the closer to term a pregnancy is. You also don't seem to have a good grasp on how the constitution works. It has a mechanism for amending itself so it is most appropriate to interpret it in an originalist framework. That is usually interpreted as meaning what the people who wrote it likely meant or, if referring to something in common usage at the time, then the modern item currently in common usage or likely to be in common usage. Abortion was illegal at the time of writing the constitution and also at the time of writing the 4th ammendment and stayed illegal for many decades following so there is no way they meant that procedure was protected by the constitution, it was and is very clearly the purview of the state legislatures (or you can amend the constitution). This is why overturning roe was the right thing to do even if you strongly support the legality of abortion, as I do.
Tade0 4y ago
In my corner of the world abortion is effectively banned - in practice even in cases when performing it would save the woman's life. Some people cross the border, others buy Mifepristone on the black market. Statistics still indicate no abortions and that is frequently used as an argument that the ban is effective.
- SpikeDad 4y ago
  US South?
  - Tade0 4y ago
    Poland.
planarhobbit 4y ago
- devindotcom 4y ago
  Yikes. I'd recommend talking with and listening to some real people, especially women, to get a sense of how out of touch the views you espouse here are. Calling widespread outrage over bodily autonomy a temper tantrum and the consequences of removing a decades-old right to abortion FUD is scary stuff.
  - klipt 4y ago
    The conservatives who oppose abortion generally also oppose premarital sex. So women threatening less premarital sex doesn't sound like a downside to them.
    - analog31 4y ago
      Women could threaten less marital sex too. Consider "Lysistrata".
      - klipt 4y ago
        But in Lysistrata's time, porn and sex toys weren't as accessible.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      Alot of them say they are. They are also hypocrites. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/premarital-sex-almost-everyones-doing-it/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/premarital-sex-almost-everyones...
      - refurb 4y ago
        Well I don’t think it’s good to get drunk but I do it on occasion. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe it.
Animats 4y ago
Could this be used to track gun permit holders?
Gunax 4y ago
I have ranted about this before: but it all feels pointless. The information is out there. You can make it illegal to look, but it doesn't matter. Consider that a shopkeeper can recognize frequent customers by their face. Our brains are made for face recognition. Now obviously that's at a different scale than automated plate readers, but the information is there. We just took for granted that no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces. Our privacy was guaranteed not in law, but in practicality. You can try to ban it, and you can maybe ban municipalities from using it, but the information is there. Anyone can just set up a camera by their house or business and collect the same info.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Now obviously that's at a different scale This is exactly why the rest of your argument is wrong. The difference is scale is so vast that it makes the new surveillance society something completely different from people seeing other people in public as they have done for thousands of years. > no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces Because it was literally impossible for someone to memorize a million faces. Let alone a few billion. And their precise location 24x7. At most you'd have the occasional shopkeeper with a sharp memory who might remember a few thousand regulars. But even that information wasn't available via quick database query. You had to send investigators with photos to interview people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Blackstrat 4y ago
License plate readers were an issue long before RvW was overturned. And what everyone seems to be ignoring is that the Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Passing a reasonable bill, one that would garner bipartisan support, would be relatively easy. But remember, both parties value the issue, and the money and votes it garners, far more than solving the issue.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  You are absolutely correct! Wildly, this strange new paradigm where everything old is new again might really benefit society. Progressives starting to understand the implications of mass surveillance and how it can impact them as well. I have to say it's enjoyable. Is it too late? Probably, I guess we'll see, but it is refreshing to hear the other side of the spectrum suddenly concerned about massive government overreach and destruction of privacy.
- sbelskie 4y ago
  Do you have a “reasonable” bill in mind? I can’t really see much of anything getting 60 votes in the senate.
  - Blackstrat 4y ago
    Something between France and Britain, i.e., abortion cutoff somewhere between 14 (France) and 24 weeks (British). Make it a clean bill. Leave out late term, identity and gender politics, etc. The bill would pull 60 votes, IF AND ONLY IF, anyone cared about a woman having the right to an abortion. They do not.
    - sbelskie 4y ago
      I don’t really understand what you mean about keeping “gender politics” out a national law on abortion. By “leave out late term” you mean disallow it, leave it up to states (many of whom will outlaw it and have even when their are severe risks to the mother), or something else?

43 points by arunbahl 4y ago

major505 4y ago

Its a danger to anyone who values its own privacy.

superkuh 4y ago
Yep. It's been nice to see a new subset of the population realize the dangers of pervasive surveillance and object to those they can live without. But what about the real dangers people don't want to think about because they're so useful? It's pretty likely you carry a cell phone everywhere you go and it's always by you. They are literally tracking devices. It doesn't matter what software you run on the userspace computer on your phone. The cell modem you don't legally control will always be broadcasting beacons and the basestations with their shared accurate clocks are going to be multi-laterating your position down <100m. In the USA they're keeping this data for 2-5 years. And they're going to continue "anonymizing" this data that shows you going to work and home over and over for years by removing names and then selling the raw location data to companies which then sell it to government and special interest groups which de-anonymize it easily. The only real privacy is turning off your cell phone radio.
devmunchies 4y ago
right, either you (1) value privacy and don't believe readers are ethical, or (2) you think a loss of some freedom to curb criminal activity is permissible. The way the title uses "danger" frames criminal activity as a good thing as long as it's an activity you agree with. It should instead be a general call for privacy protections, not a selective call.

danschumann 4y ago

This should fall under a reasonable right to privacy. They should need to get a warrant for a specific crime to search for specific plates, not blanket access to search all and contrive crimes stridently after the fact.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bwanab 4y ago
You mean, like, actually respect the 4th Amendment?
- staticautomatic 4y ago
  Except the 4th amendment isn’t an unqualified right. Abortion needs its own amendment.
  - nullfield 4y ago
    See it’s funny: while one can argue about “unreasonable”, perhaps, the very clear words “shall not be violated” seem pretty unqualified-but people don’t like he very clear words “shall not be infringed” either so :shrug: Given that this should fall into the few relationships that have historically been treated as sacrosanct-a man and his priest, doctor, and counsel/attorney-it’ll be a hard uphill climb to make a case for investigation into/prevention of medical care decisions not being an unreasonable search or unreasonable seizure. Then again IANAL, so again who knows what fun reasoning lawyers will come up with :shrug-again: 4th: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    - staticautomatic 4y ago
      You should consider reading some supreme court case law if you want to know how “unreasonable” has typically been interpreted.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      Your opinion presupposes abortion is a medical procedure and not a murder and ever larger percentages of the population would disagree with that categorization the closer to term a pregnancy is. You also don't seem to have a good grasp on how the constitution works. It has a mechanism for amending itself so it is most appropriate to interpret it in an originalist framework. That is usually interpreted as meaning what the people who wrote it likely meant or, if referring to something in common usage at the time, then the modern item currently in common usage or likely to be in common usage. Abortion was illegal at the time of writing the constitution and also at the time of writing the 4th ammendment and stayed illegal for many decades following so there is no way they meant that procedure was protected by the constitution, it was and is very clearly the purview of the state legislatures (or you can amend the constitution). This is why overturning roe was the right thing to do even if you strongly support the legality of abortion, as I do.

Tade0 4y ago

In my corner of the world abortion is effectively banned - in practice even in cases when performing it would save the woman's life. Some people cross the border, others buy Mifepristone on the black market. Statistics still indicate no abortions and that is frequently used as an argument that the ban is effective.

SpikeDad 4y ago
US South?
- Tade0 4y ago
  Poland.

planarhobbit 4y ago

devindotcom 4y ago
Yikes. I'd recommend talking with and listening to some real people, especially women, to get a sense of how out of touch the views you espouse here are. Calling widespread outrage over bodily autonomy a temper tantrum and the consequences of removing a decades-old right to abortion FUD is scary stuff.
- klipt 4y ago
  The conservatives who oppose abortion generally also oppose premarital sex. So women threatening less premarital sex doesn't sound like a downside to them.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Women could threaten less marital sex too. Consider "Lysistrata".
    - klipt 4y ago
      But in Lysistrata's time, porn and sex toys weren't as accessible.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    Alot of them say they are. They are also hypocrites. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/premarital-sex-almost-everyones-doing-it/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/premarital-sex-almost-everyones...
    - refurb 4y ago
      Well I don’t think it’s good to get drunk but I do it on occasion. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe it.

Animats 4y ago

Could this be used to track gun permit holders?

Gunax 4y ago

I have ranted about this before: but it all feels pointless. The information is out there. You can make it illegal to look, but it doesn't matter. Consider that a shopkeeper can recognize frequent customers by their face. Our brains are made for face recognition. Now obviously that's at a different scale than automated plate readers, but the information is there. We just took for granted that no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces. Our privacy was guaranteed not in law, but in practicality. You can try to ban it, and you can maybe ban municipalities from using it, but the information is there. Anyone can just set up a camera by their house or business and collect the same info.

jjav 4y ago
> Now obviously that's at a different scale This is exactly why the rest of your argument is wrong. The difference is scale is so vast that it makes the new surveillance society something completely different from people seeing other people in public as they have done for thousands of years. > no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces Because it was literally impossible for someone to memorize a million faces. Let alone a few billion. And their precise location 24x7. At most you'd have the occasional shopkeeper with a sharp memory who might remember a few thousand regulars. But even that information wasn't available via quick database query. You had to send investigators with photos to interview people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Blackstrat 4y ago

License plate readers were an issue long before RvW was overturned. And what everyone seems to be ignoring is that the Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Passing a reasonable bill, one that would garner bipartisan support, would be relatively easy. But remember, both parties value the issue, and the money and votes it garners, far more than solving the issue.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
You are absolutely correct! Wildly, this strange new paradigm where everything old is new again might really benefit society. Progressives starting to understand the implications of mass surveillance and how it can impact them as well. I have to say it's enjoyable. Is it too late? Probably, I guess we'll see, but it is refreshing to hear the other side of the spectrum suddenly concerned about massive government overreach and destruction of privacy.
sbelskie 4y ago
Do you have a “reasonable” bill in mind? I can’t really see much of anything getting 60 votes in the senate.
- Blackstrat 4y ago
  Something between France and Britain, i.e., abortion cutoff somewhere between 14 (France) and 24 weeks (British). Make it a clean bill. Leave out late term, identity and gender politics, etc. The bill would pull 60 votes, IF AND ONLY IF, anyone cared about a woman having the right to an abortion. They do not.
  - sbelskie 4y ago
    I don’t really understand what you mean about keeping “gender politics” out a national law on abortion. By “leave out late term” you mean disallow it, leave it up to states (many of whom will outlaw it and have even when their are severe risks to the mother), or something else?