20 ms·

License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today. It's not just government use either. There are pr

by simonw 1y ago

License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today. It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates (sometimes by driving around parking lots with a camera), build a database of what plate was seen where at what time, then sell access to both law enforcement and I believe private investigators. Want to know if your spouse is having an affair? Those databases may well have the answer. Here is a Wired story from 2014 about Vigilant Solutions, founded in 2009: https://www.wired.com/2014/05/license-plate-tracking/ https://www.wired.com/2014/05/license-plate-tracking/ I believe Vigilant only provide access to law enforcement, but Digital Recognition Network sell access to others as well: https://drndata.com/about/ https://drndata.com/about/ Good Vice story about that: https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-tracked-someone-with-license-plate-readers-drn/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-tracked-someone-with-licen...

baggachipz 1y ago
Flock is extremely egregious. https://deflock.me https://deflock.me
- vkou 1y ago
  WA state has figured out a solution to the Flock problem. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules-data-captured-flock-safety-cameras-are-public-records https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules... If they are going to be used by the government and law enforcement, they are clearly government-collected data about you - and thus, are subject to (the state equivalent of) a FOIA request. This puts an onerous compliance requirement on Flock and the ciites that allow it to operate. Hopefully, WA's state legislature will decline to give them any exemptions, which will kill that company's operations in the state. --- Among other things, these cameras have been illegally used to spy on people who were getting an abortion in WA. Flock's executives (and the engineers who implemented that feature) belong in prison.
- Lammy 1y ago
  Relevant federal payola https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000116304 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2025&id=D000116304 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyis...
- joe5150 1y ago
  Flock has a series of bizarre, obviously LLM-generated blog posts trying to convince the public that they are working "toward a future where compliance and community trust walk hand in hand".... [1] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-compliance-doesnt-have-to-be-so-hard https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-compliance-doe... [2] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-the-work-already-underway https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-the-work-alrea... [3] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-transparency-control-and-the-path-forward https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-transparency-c...
  - alistairSH 1y ago
    They put off serious “We have always been at war with Eastasia” doublespeak vibes.
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      Flock's founder is just as dangerous a tech-bro as the company he created [1]: > Langley offers a prediction: In less than 10 years, Flock’s cameras, airborne and fixed, will eradicate almost all crime in the U.S. (He acknowledges that programs to boost youth employment and cut recidivism will help.) It sounds like a pipe dream from another AI-can-solve-everything tech bro, but Langley, in the face of a wave of opposition from privacy advocates and Flock’s archrival, the $2.1 billion (2024 revenue) police tech giant Axon Enterprise, is a true believer. He’s convinced that America can and should be a place where everyone feels safe. And once it’s draped in a vast net of U.S.-made Flock surveillance tech, it will be. This guy literally wants to replicate China's social credit score and ubiquitous surveillance in the US - and instead of shunning him, the company and everyone on their board, payroll and investors like an effort of that scale deserves, police, law-and-order freaks and many municipalities flock to it. Where the fuck is the "don't tread on me" crowd? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-st...
- c23gooey 1y ago
  See also the latest Benn Jordan video on youtube [1] 1 - https://youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY?si=lu_nCW8A94ziP9YW https://youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY?si=lu_nCW8A94ziP9YW
smoser 1y ago
Toyota was working on a feature for its cars that would report license plates from amber alerts to authorities. https://x.com/SteveMoser/status/1493990907661766664?s=20 https://x.com/SteveMoser/status/1493990907661766664?s=20
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  That would frankly be a narrow, reasonable application. The problem is the database building. Law enforcement queries should all be forced to be 1. Require a warrant or an active emergency and 2. Be strictly real-time, for a set duration, and store no information about cars that are not subject to the warrant. If either of those is not hardcoses into the technology, I don't want my local police department to be allowed to use license plate scanners whatsoever.
  - chaps 1y ago
    Okay now, how do you show that it's not being abused? FOIA? Good luck.
    - greedo 1y ago
      Exactly. Witness how Texas has failed to provide emails between Musk and the governor... Well, they released them, but they were redacted 99.99%.
    - ruined 1y ago
      immediate public disclosure of all tracking requests
      - chaps 1y ago
        That's even harder than FOIA.
        ruined 1y ago
        practically it's simpler, and more obvious when violated. and i figure as long as we're legislating we'd better shoot for the moon
ActorNightly 1y ago
I mean, its possible to subpoena cellphone records and geographically track your movement based on which cell towers you connect to. But regardless, I always find it funny that most of the rhetoric for personal liberties revolves around being able to do illegal things.
- simonw 1y ago
  That is exactly my point: no subpoena or warrant is required for access to license plate scan databases.
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    I want you to tell me in exact words that you firmly believe that when the current regime starts requesting records without any legal oversight, cell companies won't comply, because users trust is worth to them more than shareholder value.
    - simonw 1y ago
      What's the point you are trying to make here?
      - ActorNightly 1y ago
        That things like subpoena matter very little to actual fascists.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- holmesworcester 1y ago
  The most important reason for privacy is that without it, social norms calcify. If a norm is outdated, oppressive, or maladaptive in some way and needs to be changed, it becomes very difficult to change the norm if you cannot build a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm. It is even harder if you cannot even talk about building a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm. For many norms, like the taboo on homosexuality which was strong in the US and Europe until recently and is still strong in many places today, the taboo and threat of ostracism are strong enough that people need privacy to build critical mass to change the norm even when the taboo is not enshrined in law, or the law is not usually enforced. This was the mechanism of "coming out of the closet": build critical mass for changing the norm in private, and then take the risk of being in public violation once enough critical mass had been organized that it was plausible to replace the old oppressive/maladaptive norm with a new one. But yes, obsolete/maladaptive/oppressive norms are often enshrined in law too.
ComplexSystems 1y ago
Don't new cars just directly record your location as you drive them?
- sleepybrett 1y ago
  One wonders if any given tesla is harvesting the plates the other cars it see in traffic as well.
- nmeagent 1y ago
  Do you think that corporate erosion of (or outright hostility to) privacy is somehow a compelling reason to deny rights to those of us who make different choices in an attempt to protect them? Just because some people decided to buy a smartphone on wheels, do I have to suffer and have my freedom of movement narrowed and protection from arbitrary inspection by government agents denied?
  - wartywhoa23 1y ago
    You can't beat an alreadist/incrementalist with reason. For them, if you ever start to walk towards a cliff, you must fall from it, because why? Because their half-dimensional logic.
  - ComplexSystems 1y ago
    Of course not - it makes no sense to gather that from my post. Were you trying to respond to someone else?
- drnick1 1y ago
  They do, but it is relatively easy to nuke the onboard modem to permanently disconnect your car. Unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care that their cars are actively spying on them.
  - torginus 1y ago
    My guess would be that your car would develop some covert or overt fault if you did that. You might even lose warranty as the manufacturer could claim that the issue they fixed via a software update couldn't be installed on your car - or couldn't monitor some diagnostics which are a prerequisite for in-warranty repair. Most telco execs would sell their own mothers before offering reasonable data plans - that your car comes with one for free should be very telling
hulitu 1y ago
> It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates Welcome to capitalism. It is very hard, in EU and US, to tell where the government ends and the private companies begin.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  especially when private companies can buy politicians. At this point there is no line and the two have become one.
shadowgovt 1y ago
Counterpoint: when you're sharing a public road, the license of your car to share that road isn't private information. ... But I echo the concern with how the collection and aggregation of the data can be abused. I just don't have a great solution. "Don't use shared public resources to do secret things; they're incompatible with privacy" might be the rubric here.
- 9dev 1y ago
  As much hate as it gets, the GDPR has pretty clear guidelines for situations like these. Essentially, the purpose of the data collection matters. Your license plates may be public information as in they are visible in the public, but that doesn’t mean collecting the information is, or providing others access to it - without your consent.
crazygringo 1y ago
I'm curious what you think the solution is? Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not. Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public. Obviously it's now scary that you're being tracked. But what is the solution? We certainly don't want to outlaw taking photos in public. Is it the mass aggregation of already-public data that should be made illegal? What adverse consequences might that have, e.g. journalists compiling public data to prove governmental corruption?
- Teever 1y ago
  The solution is to wake up and start treating this like it is which is mass stalking. Sousveillance against the people who profit from these disgusting antisocial behaviours should be common place. If an individual was to do this to a single person they'd considered a creep and the cops would rustle them out of a the bushes and seize all their cameras as evidence of their stalking behaviour. The act of incorporating and doing the same thing en masse doesn't make it legal.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- batisteo 1y ago
  There is a huge overlap between legal and immoral
- vkou 1y ago
  > I'm curious what you think the solution is? The solution is simple. If there's a judge that signed off on a warrant to track a particular vehicle or person, cameras should be permitted to track its movements. Otherwise, cameras should only be allowed to track people actively breaking the law - such as sending tickets to people running red lights. They should not record or retain any information about drivers that are following the rules. Fishing expeditions are illegal and immoral. Mass tracking of innocent people is immoral. --- Judicial warrants exist as a counterbalance between two public needs (The need to not be harassed by the police for no good reason, and the need for the police to be able to conduct active, targeted investigations of a particular crime.)
xnx 1y ago
> License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today. Worse than cell phone tracking? Cell phone tracking is higher fidelity, continuous, and works everywhere.
- DaSHacka 1y ago
  The difference is you can opt out by leaving it at home.
- simonw 1y ago
  People talk about cell phone tracking all the time. I rarely see people talk about license plate scanning, hence "under-appreciated".
legitster 1y ago
I mean... the whole point of a license plate is that it's a public identifier. It should not be that controversial that's publicly registered information. In the same way that flights are tracked. Multiple Supreme Courts have also made it clear several times that they believe you do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. So all the traffic camera databases do is automate and make easier something that is currently definitively legal. The more pertinent issue in this case is that driving patterns should not be grounds for detainment without a warrant. Especially if you have no evidence to link the driver to the car. But unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision made suspicion of being an illegal immigrant grounds for detainment.
- 9dev 1y ago
  This line of argument enables all kinds of criminals to do stuff you absolutely do not want them to. From stalkers figuring out the best time to rape their victim to organised crime planning cash truck robbery routes.
- pton_xd 1y ago
  > Multiple Supreme Courts have also made it clear several times that they believe you do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. So all the traffic camera databases do is automate and make easier something that is currently definitively legal. I propose we streamline things and augment your cars license plate with a placard stating: First and Last Name Address and Phone Number Drivers license number Age and net worth Prior convictions Maybe there's a few more factoids we could add on there? I'd really like to know who is parked next to me. I mean, you're in public and have no expectation of privacy afterall.
relwin 1y ago
Here's a vid describing DRN & Resolvion supplying car location data to repo companies. I didn't realize they'll strap a camera pack on your car and pay you a commission on the license plate data you collect. https://youtu.be/xE5NnZm9OpU?si=oEkSvUjNmBhQD-xI&t=138 https://youtu.be/xE5NnZm9OpU?si=oEkSvUjNmBhQD-xI&t=138
titzer 1y ago
Don't use Google Location Service (GLS) on your phone. It's built into Google Play Services, aka the enormous rootkit from Google and does...stuff...with high accuracy location data because lawyers think they can argue in court that that data is "anonymized".
impish9208 1y ago
Car repossession companies also use this data.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Yeah, I was just watching a How Money Works video and how these same services are used for car repos. Worse yet, there is a gig economy around paying people to collect photos taken from private cars and giving them a kickback for any that lead to repos. I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg.
chzblck 1y ago
- yeah it also has solved 3 murders near house so is it really a net negative?
- potato3732842 1y ago
  What are the odds they wouldn't have solved those murders anyway?
wnc3141 1y ago
I'd be for it if there was direct control over the data. Like it shouldn't be hard to not let ICE into your police data when looking for stolen cars.
throwaway638383 1y ago
CAIR-CA is suing San Jose over it — https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-ca-joins-lawsuit-challenging-san-joses-warrantless-license-plate-surveillance/ https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-ca-joins-lawsuit-chal...
XorNot 1y ago
This is just the classic infosec nerd missing the point. The problem isn't the license plate monitoring. The problem is the detention without cause. It's the jackbooted thugs kicking in your door which are the issue, not that address books exist.
- danielbln 1y ago
  If the data troth hadn't been created, the jackboots wouldn't know what door to kick in.
- simonw 1y ago
  Maybe both are bad.
lynx97 1y ago
Why do you think exposing adultery is a bad thing?
- WastedCucumber 1y ago
  I'm sure they don't think exposing adultery is inherently bad, but rather that the method employed feels like an excessive violation of privacy. If you'd like a different example, imagine a man is angry that his ex wife is with someone else now, and uses such a service to figure out where he can find the pair.
- simonw 1y ago
  Heres a better example: want to escape an abusive relationship? Your license plate may help your abuser track you down again.
  - lynx97 1y ago
    There are better ways to deal with stalkers then fighting the windmill of license plates.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
It's another good reason to reduce car dependency
MSFT_Edging 1y ago
All the coverage lately on things like Flock and other privacy-reducing panopticon startups always softball the topic so hard. "As long as its being used by police professionally..." is an insane stance to keep on this. In the West we regularly point to China's surveillance state, as some horrific human rights abuse. Yet when it happens at home we don't use that same level of vitriol. Which is it? China uses authoritarian surveillance? Because then we have government-corporate cooperation here for the same authoritarian surveillance. If it's okay for officer Opie to have access to enough data to stalk and harass any woman that refuses him, then we're no better. No amount of "right hands" can make this level of surveillance okay.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- faitswulff 1y ago
  You see similar levels of hypocrisy leveled at the capacity for Chinese EVs to surveil consumers, but not at Tesla, when we know that Tesla employees had access to sex tapes of their customers in their cars. As long as it’s western capital or western police doing the surveillance, it must be permissible, right? /s We should be clamping down on all surveillance, and this is not a problem that has a technological solution. Quite the reverse, actually.
- pixl97 1y ago
  This is just nationalism in practice. Them bad, us good. No nuances, no thinking.
  - MSFT_Edging 1y ago
    I've had people directly ask me "why is nationalism bad?" This is why. It blinds you to your true qualities. The point of nationalism is to separate pride from accomplishments. Without something to back your pride, its hollow, violent, and hateful.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
[flagged]
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  Because people are human beings and not property? They're your spouse, not your possession, and still possess free agency. Which is one of the reasons why (simplifying) we don't legislate morality, and it's not illegal to be an asshole. What about divorce? The logical conclusion of your scenario is that divorce should be illegal too, as you made a huge commitment to your partner, and now you want to break it?
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - R_D_Olivaw 1y ago
      [flagged]
- bitwalker 1y ago
  Nobody is out here arguing that privacy is important because they want to make it easier to get away with things that are immoral or criminal. The importance of privacy is in retaining as much control over what information you share with others as possible, especially with the public at large, corporations, and the government. The information you wish to control is typically the kind that is sensitive in nature: PII; browser history, authentication secrets; what banking institution(s) you use; what accounts you have and their identifiers; financial information (what assets do you have, what are they, and how much are they worth, likewise with debts); spending patterns (where you shop, how often, how much do you spend); political affiliation and activities; religious beliefs and activities; how often do you travel, where do you go, and how do you get there; what is your daily routine/schedule, and how frequently do you deviate from it, etc. The list goes on and on. Some of that information you might be totally fine with anyone knowing, such as your political leanings or religious beliefs. Others might be deeply uncomfortable with that being shared with just anyone. I assume you'd agree with me that at least some of the information I listed above is unambiguously of the variety that deserves privacy, i.e. you control who has access to it, and when. Some things that should be generally private (e.g. financial activity), might need to be conditionally shared with certain parties (e.g. the government) - you might be fine with the IRS knowing details about your financial activity for purposes of taxation, but be understandably pissed if you found out that they were then making that information freely available to anyone that asked - because they have taken away your control over that information. I'm not saying that is actually the case, it is just an example. Lastly, the more information about yourself that is effectively public information (either because you don't keep it private, or someone else has made it public without your consent), the easier it is to uncover other things that you do consider private. If someone can monitor everywhere you go, they can build a picture of you as an individual. Maybe you don't share your religious beliefs with others unless asked, but if someone knows that, e.g., you go to a specific church every Wednesday and Sunday, they now know your specific denomination and that you are more involved than the sort of person that only shows up on Sunday mornings, or only once a month, or only on holidays, etc. That information can be used to target you, either for innocuous purposes like advertising products to you that sell predominantly to that demographic - or for more malicious purposes, like running a scam against you that appeals to your specific beliefs, or in some cases, violence. That may seem unlikely to you, but you may also benefit from not being a minority that is prone to being targeted in such a way - the right to privacy ensures that we retain control over the information that can be used to target or hurt us according to our own risk tolerance.
stronglikedan 1y ago
Even more egregious is that most states have made it illegal to hide your plate from cameras, even if it's still completely visible and readable by the human eye.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
This is what ad companies do everyday.

by simonw 1y ago

baggachipz 1y ago

Flock is extremely egregious. https://deflock.me https://deflock.me

vkou 1y ago
WA state has figured out a solution to the Flock problem. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules-data-captured-flock-safety-cameras-are-public-records https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules... If they are going to be used by the government and law enforcement, they are clearly government-collected data about you - and thus, are subject to (the state equivalent of) a FOIA request. This puts an onerous compliance requirement on Flock and the ciites that allow it to operate. Hopefully, WA's state legislature will decline to give them any exemptions, which will kill that company's operations in the state. --- Among other things, these cameras have been illegally used to spy on people who were getting an abortion in WA. Flock's executives (and the engineers who implemented that feature) belong in prison.
Lammy 1y ago
Relevant federal payola https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000116304 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary... https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2025&id=D000116304 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyis...
joe5150 1y ago
Flock has a series of bizarre, obviously LLM-generated blog posts trying to convince the public that they are working "toward a future where compliance and community trust walk hand in hand".... [1] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-compliance-doesnt-have-to-be-so-hard https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-compliance-doe... [2] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-the-work-already-underway https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-the-work-alrea... [3] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-transparency-control-and-the-path-forward https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-transparency-c...
- alistairSH 1y ago
  They put off serious “We have always been at war with Eastasia” doublespeak vibes.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    Flock's founder is just as dangerous a tech-bro as the company he created [1]: > Langley offers a prediction: In less than 10 years, Flock’s cameras, airborne and fixed, will eradicate almost all crime in the U.S. (He acknowledges that programs to boost youth employment and cut recidivism will help.) It sounds like a pipe dream from another AI-can-solve-everything tech bro, but Langley, in the face of a wave of opposition from privacy advocates and Flock’s archrival, the $2.1 billion (2024 revenue) police tech giant Axon Enterprise, is a true believer. He’s convinced that America can and should be a place where everyone feels safe. And once it’s draped in a vast net of U.S.-made Flock surveillance tech, it will be. This guy literally wants to replicate China's social credit score and ubiquitous surveillance in the US - and instead of shunning him, the company and everyone on their board, payroll and investors like an effort of that scale deserves, police, law-and-order freaks and many municipalities flock to it. Where the fuck is the "don't tread on me" crowd? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-startup-flock-thinks-it-can-eliminate-all-crime-in-america/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2025/09/03/ai-st...
c23gooey 1y ago
See also the latest Benn Jordan video on youtube [1] 1 - https://youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY?si=lu_nCW8A94ziP9YW https://youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY?si=lu_nCW8A94ziP9YW

smoser 1y ago

Toyota was working on a feature for its cars that would report license plates from amber alerts to authorities. https://x.com/SteveMoser/status/1493990907661766664?s=20 https://x.com/SteveMoser/status/1493990907661766664?s=20

BobaFloutist 1y ago
That would frankly be a narrow, reasonable application. The problem is the database building. Law enforcement queries should all be forced to be 1. Require a warrant or an active emergency and 2. Be strictly real-time, for a set duration, and store no information about cars that are not subject to the warrant. If either of those is not hardcoses into the technology, I don't want my local police department to be allowed to use license plate scanners whatsoever.
- chaps 1y ago
  Okay now, how do you show that it's not being abused? FOIA? Good luck.
  - greedo 1y ago
    Exactly. Witness how Texas has failed to provide emails between Musk and the governor... Well, they released them, but they were redacted 99.99%.
  - ruined 1y ago
    immediate public disclosure of all tracking requests
    - chaps 1y ago
      That's even harder than FOIA.
      - ruined 1y ago
        practically it's simpler, and more obvious when violated. and i figure as long as we're legislating we'd better shoot for the moon

ActorNightly 1y ago

I mean, its possible to subpoena cellphone records and geographically track your movement based on which cell towers you connect to. But regardless, I always find it funny that most of the rhetoric for personal liberties revolves around being able to do illegal things.

simonw 1y ago
That is exactly my point: no subpoena or warrant is required for access to license plate scan databases.
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  I want you to tell me in exact words that you firmly believe that when the current regime starts requesting records without any legal oversight, cell companies won't comply, because users trust is worth to them more than shareholder value.
  - simonw 1y ago
    What's the point you are trying to make here?
    - ActorNightly 1y ago
      That things like subpoena matter very little to actual fascists.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
holmesworcester 1y ago
The most important reason for privacy is that without it, social norms calcify. If a norm is outdated, oppressive, or maladaptive in some way and needs to be changed, it becomes very difficult to change the norm if you cannot build a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm. It is even harder if you cannot even talk about building a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm. For many norms, like the taboo on homosexuality which was strong in the US and Europe until recently and is still strong in many places today, the taboo and threat of ostracism are strong enough that people need privacy to build critical mass to change the norm even when the taboo is not enshrined in law, or the law is not usually enforced. This was the mechanism of "coming out of the closet": build critical mass for changing the norm in private, and then take the risk of being in public violation once enough critical mass had been organized that it was plausible to replace the old oppressive/maladaptive norm with a new one. But yes, obsolete/maladaptive/oppressive norms are often enshrined in law too.

ComplexSystems 1y ago

Don't new cars just directly record your location as you drive them?

sleepybrett 1y ago
One wonders if any given tesla is harvesting the plates the other cars it see in traffic as well.
nmeagent 1y ago
Do you think that corporate erosion of (or outright hostility to) privacy is somehow a compelling reason to deny rights to those of us who make different choices in an attempt to protect them? Just because some people decided to buy a smartphone on wheels, do I have to suffer and have my freedom of movement narrowed and protection from arbitrary inspection by government agents denied?
- wartywhoa23 1y ago
  You can't beat an alreadist/incrementalist with reason. For them, if you ever start to walk towards a cliff, you must fall from it, because why? Because their half-dimensional logic.
- ComplexSystems 1y ago
  Of course not - it makes no sense to gather that from my post. Were you trying to respond to someone else?
drnick1 1y ago
They do, but it is relatively easy to nuke the onboard modem to permanently disconnect your car. Unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care that their cars are actively spying on them.
- torginus 1y ago
  My guess would be that your car would develop some covert or overt fault if you did that. You might even lose warranty as the manufacturer could claim that the issue they fixed via a software update couldn't be installed on your car - or couldn't monitor some diagnostics which are a prerequisite for in-warranty repair. Most telco execs would sell their own mothers before offering reasonable data plans - that your car comes with one for free should be very telling

hulitu 1y ago

> It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates Welcome to capitalism. It is very hard, in EU and US, to tell where the government ends and the private companies begin.

thewebguyd 1y ago
especially when private companies can buy politicians. At this point there is no line and the two have become one.

shadowgovt 1y ago

Counterpoint: when you're sharing a public road, the license of your car to share that road isn't private information. ... But I echo the concern with how the collection and aggregation of the data can be abused. I just don't have a great solution. "Don't use shared public resources to do secret things; they're incompatible with privacy" might be the rubric here.

9dev 1y ago
As much hate as it gets, the GDPR has pretty clear guidelines for situations like these. Essentially, the purpose of the data collection matters. Your license plates may be public information as in they are visible in the public, but that doesn’t mean collecting the information is, or providing others access to it - without your consent.

crazygringo 1y ago

I'm curious what you think the solution is? Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not. Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public. Obviously it's now scary that you're being tracked. But what is the solution? We certainly don't want to outlaw taking photos in public. Is it the mass aggregation of already-public data that should be made illegal? What adverse consequences might that have, e.g. journalists compiling public data to prove governmental corruption?

Teever 1y ago
The solution is to wake up and start treating this like it is which is mass stalking. Sousveillance against the people who profit from these disgusting antisocial behaviours should be common place. If an individual was to do this to a single person they'd considered a creep and the cops would rustle them out of a the bushes and seize all their cameras as evidence of their stalking behaviour. The act of incorporating and doing the same thing en masse doesn't make it legal.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
batisteo 1y ago
There is a huge overlap between legal and immoral
vkou 1y ago
> I'm curious what you think the solution is? The solution is simple. If there's a judge that signed off on a warrant to track a particular vehicle or person, cameras should be permitted to track its movements. Otherwise, cameras should only be allowed to track people actively breaking the law - such as sending tickets to people running red lights. They should not record or retain any information about drivers that are following the rules. Fishing expeditions are illegal and immoral. Mass tracking of innocent people is immoral. --- Judicial warrants exist as a counterbalance between two public needs (The need to not be harassed by the police for no good reason, and the need for the police to be able to conduct active, targeted investigations of a particular crime.)

xnx 1y ago

> License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today. Worse than cell phone tracking? Cell phone tracking is higher fidelity, continuous, and works everywhere.

DaSHacka 1y ago
The difference is you can opt out by leaving it at home.
simonw 1y ago
People talk about cell phone tracking all the time. I rarely see people talk about license plate scanning, hence "under-appreciated".

legitster 1y ago

I mean... the whole point of a license plate is that it's a public identifier. It should not be that controversial that's publicly registered information. In the same way that flights are tracked. Multiple Supreme Courts have also made it clear several times that they believe you do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. So all the traffic camera databases do is automate and make easier something that is currently definitively legal. The more pertinent issue in this case is that driving patterns should not be grounds for detainment without a warrant. Especially if you have no evidence to link the driver to the car. But unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision made suspicion of being an illegal immigrant grounds for detainment.

9dev 1y ago
This line of argument enables all kinds of criminals to do stuff you absolutely do not want them to. From stalkers figuring out the best time to rape their victim to organised crime planning cash truck robbery routes.
pton_xd 1y ago
> Multiple Supreme Courts have also made it clear several times that they believe you do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. So all the traffic camera databases do is automate and make easier something that is currently definitively legal. I propose we streamline things and augment your cars license plate with a placard stating: First and Last Name Address and Phone Number Drivers license number Age and net worth Prior convictions Maybe there's a few more factoids we could add on there? I'd really like to know who is parked next to me. I mean, you're in public and have no expectation of privacy afterall.

relwin 1y ago

Here's a vid describing DRN & Resolvion supplying car location data to repo companies. I didn't realize they'll strap a camera pack on your car and pay you a commission on the license plate data you collect. https://youtu.be/xE5NnZm9OpU?si=oEkSvUjNmBhQD-xI&t=138 https://youtu.be/xE5NnZm9OpU?si=oEkSvUjNmBhQD-xI&t=138

titzer 1y ago

Don't use Google Location Service (GLS) on your phone. It's built into Google Play Services, aka the enormous rootkit from Google and does...stuff...with high accuracy location data because lawyers think they can argue in court that that data is "anonymized".

impish9208 1y ago

Car repossession companies also use this data.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Yeah, I was just watching a How Money Works video and how these same services are used for car repos. Worse yet, there is a gig economy around paying people to collect photos taken from private cars and giving them a kickback for any that lead to repos. I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg.

chzblck 1y ago

- yeah it also has solved 3 murders near house so is it really a net negative?

potato3732842 1y ago
What are the odds they wouldn't have solved those murders anyway?

wnc3141 1y ago

I'd be for it if there was direct control over the data. Like it shouldn't be hard to not let ICE into your police data when looking for stolen cars.

throwaway638383 1y ago

CAIR-CA is suing San Jose over it — https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-ca-joins-lawsuit-challenging-san-joses-warrantless-license-plate-surveillance/ https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-ca-joins-lawsuit-chal...

XorNot 1y ago

This is just the classic infosec nerd missing the point. The problem isn't the license plate monitoring. The problem is the detention without cause. It's the jackbooted thugs kicking in your door which are the issue, not that address books exist.

danielbln 1y ago
If the data troth hadn't been created, the jackboots wouldn't know what door to kick in.
simonw 1y ago
Maybe both are bad.

lynx97 1y ago

Why do you think exposing adultery is a bad thing?

WastedCucumber 1y ago
I'm sure they don't think exposing adultery is inherently bad, but rather that the method employed feels like an excessive violation of privacy. If you'd like a different example, imagine a man is angry that his ex wife is with someone else now, and uses such a service to figure out where he can find the pair.
simonw 1y ago
Heres a better example: want to escape an abusive relationship? Your license plate may help your abuser track you down again.
- lynx97 1y ago
  There are better ways to deal with stalkers then fighting the windmill of license plates.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

It's another good reason to reduce car dependency

MSFT_Edging 1y ago

All the coverage lately on things like Flock and other privacy-reducing panopticon startups always softball the topic so hard. "As long as its being used by police professionally..." is an insane stance to keep on this. In the West we regularly point to China's surveillance state, as some horrific human rights abuse. Yet when it happens at home we don't use that same level of vitriol. Which is it? China uses authoritarian surveillance? Because then we have government-corporate cooperation here for the same authoritarian surveillance. If it's okay for officer Opie to have access to enough data to stalk and harass any woman that refuses him, then we're no better. No amount of "right hands" can make this level of surveillance okay.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
faitswulff 1y ago
You see similar levels of hypocrisy leveled at the capacity for Chinese EVs to surveil consumers, but not at Tesla, when we know that Tesla employees had access to sex tapes of their customers in their cars. As long as it’s western capital or western police doing the surveillance, it must be permissible, right? /s We should be clamping down on all surveillance, and this is not a problem that has a technological solution. Quite the reverse, actually.
pixl97 1y ago
This is just nationalism in practice. Them bad, us good. No nuances, no thinking.
- MSFT_Edging 1y ago
  I've had people directly ask me "why is nationalism bad?" This is why. It blinds you to your true qualities. The point of nationalism is to separate pride from accomplishments. Without something to back your pride, its hollow, violent, and hateful.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

[flagged]

FireBeyond 1y ago
Because people are human beings and not property? They're your spouse, not your possession, and still possess free agency. Which is one of the reasons why (simplifying) we don't legislate morality, and it's not illegal to be an asshole. What about divorce? The logical conclusion of your scenario is that divorce should be illegal too, as you made a huge commitment to your partner, and now you want to break it?
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - R_D_Olivaw 1y ago
    [flagged]
bitwalker 1y ago
Nobody is out here arguing that privacy is important because they want to make it easier to get away with things that are immoral or criminal. The importance of privacy is in retaining as much control over what information you share with others as possible, especially with the public at large, corporations, and the government. The information you wish to control is typically the kind that is sensitive in nature: PII; browser history, authentication secrets; what banking institution(s) you use; what accounts you have and their identifiers; financial information (what assets do you have, what are they, and how much are they worth, likewise with debts); spending patterns (where you shop, how often, how much do you spend); political affiliation and activities; religious beliefs and activities; how often do you travel, where do you go, and how do you get there; what is your daily routine/schedule, and how frequently do you deviate from it, etc. The list goes on and on. Some of that information you might be totally fine with anyone knowing, such as your political leanings or religious beliefs. Others might be deeply uncomfortable with that being shared with just anyone. I assume you'd agree with me that at least some of the information I listed above is unambiguously of the variety that deserves privacy, i.e. you control who has access to it, and when. Some things that should be generally private (e.g. financial activity), might need to be conditionally shared with certain parties (e.g. the government) - you might be fine with the IRS knowing details about your financial activity for purposes of taxation, but be understandably pissed if you found out that they were then making that information freely available to anyone that asked - because they have taken away your control over that information. I'm not saying that is actually the case, it is just an example. Lastly, the more information about yourself that is effectively public information (either because you don't keep it private, or someone else has made it public without your consent), the easier it is to uncover other things that you do consider private. If someone can monitor everywhere you go, they can build a picture of you as an individual. Maybe you don't share your religious beliefs with others unless asked, but if someone knows that, e.g., you go to a specific church every Wednesday and Sunday, they now know your specific denomination and that you are more involved than the sort of person that only shows up on Sunday mornings, or only once a month, or only on holidays, etc. That information can be used to target you, either for innocuous purposes like advertising products to you that sell predominantly to that demographic - or for more malicious purposes, like running a scam against you that appeals to your specific beliefs, or in some cases, violence. That may seem unlikely to you, but you may also benefit from not being a minority that is prone to being targeted in such a way - the right to privacy ensures that we retain control over the information that can be used to target or hurt us according to our own risk tolerance.

stronglikedan 1y ago

Even more egregious is that most states have made it illegal to hide your plate from cameras, even if it's still completely visible and readable by the human eye.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

This is what ad companies do everyday.