6 ms·

Denver dumps Flock, awards contract to Axon

126 points by therobots927 8mo ago

downrightmike 8mo ago
Anti-Pinkerton Fed act: Gov't may not buy services that it is not legally allowed to do themselves.
- josefritzishere 8mo ago
  citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act_of_1893 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act_of_1893
- tptacek 8mo ago
  Municipal governments are extremely allowed to track license plates within their borders and have been doing so for generations.
  - samrus 8mo ago
    But do they not need a warrant to track someones movements? Alot of these tech vendors have been a way to launder data gathering to avoid neeidng to get warrants
    - tptacek 8mo ago
      They need a warrant to physically alter or attach things to private property to track them. They don't need a warrant to post monitors and record what they see in plain view in public spaces with no expectation of privacy. The entire concept of a license plate, universal around the world, works against the idea that the state can't monitor your car. I'm not saying ALPRs don't pose new privacy problems and, in the long term, depending on how they're used, even constitutional problems. But clearly the Anti-Pinkerton Act doesn't get you anywhere here.
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > They don't need a warrant to post monitors and record what they see in plain view in public spaces with no expectation of privacy. They do if it's done to the point where you can track individuals around the city. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495A.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495A.P.pdf > The AIR program uses aerial photography to track movements related to serious crimes. Multiple planes fly distinct orbits above Baltimore, equipped with PSS’s camera technology known as the “Hawkeye Wide Area Imaging System.” The cameras capture roughly 32 square miles per image per second. The planes fly at least 40 hours a week, obtaining an estimated twelve hours of coverage of around 90% of the city each day, 5 weather permitting. The PSA limits collection to daylight hours and limits the photographic resolution to one pixel per person or vehicle, though neither restriction is required by the technology. In other words, any single AIR image—captured once per second—includes around 32 square miles of Baltimore and can be magnified to a point where people and cars are individually visible, but only as blurred dots or blobs. > On the merits, because the AIR program enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements, we hold that accessing its data is a search, and its warrantless operation violates the Fourth Amendment
        tptacek 8mo ago
        The decision you're citing explicitly cites precedent for the constitutionality of warrantless mounted pole cameras. Anyways, I'm not that interested in the broader long-term constitutional debate. I'm just interested in shutting down the glib Anti-Pinkerton cite.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > The decision you're citing explicitly cites precedent for the constitutionality of warrantless mounted pole cameras. And explicity notes that it's the relative scarcity of them that matters. > Decades later, in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), location-tracking technology crossed the line from merely augmenting to impermissibly enhancing. There, police used a GPS-tracking device to remotely monitor and record a vehicle’s movements over 28 days. Id. at 402–04. Although the case was ultimately decided on trespass principles, five Justices agreed that “longer term GPS monitoring . . . impinges on expectations of privacy.” See id. at 430 (Alito, J., concurring); id. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Based on “[t]raditional surveillance” capacity “[i]n the precomputer age,” the Justices reasoned that “society’s expectation” was that police would not “secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” > Thus, Carpenter solidified the line between short-term tracking of public movements—akin to what law enforcement could do “[p]rior to the digital age”—and prolonged tracking that can reveal intimate details through habits and patterns. Put enough of them up, and the software to track between them, and you're in "enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements" territory.
    - mminer237 8mo ago
      It depends on how. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches, not any information itself. The police can always just have an officer tail you 24/7, and it's perfectly legal. Placing a GPS tracker on your car physically invades your property and therefore counts as a search though. Generally any public photography is not a search, so they're free to record and keep records however they legally can. Though at some point, even SCOTUS just does whatever feels right, regardless of what the law says. In Carpenter, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that your cellular company voluntarily handing over historical cell data also counts as a government search. An appellate court has held that if photography is extensive enough, it becomes a search. SCOTUS has held before that uncommon photographic equipment can constitute a search. That logic honestly doesn't really make sense, but it is what it is now. I wouldn't be surprised that the courts rule against it, but that's not what the law really says.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    That may change as they get more widely deployed; scale matters. https://courthousenews.com/judge-holds-norfolks-license-plate-reader-use-constitutional/ https://courthousenews.com/judge-holds-norfolks-license-plat... > "Because rapid technological advances, such as the rise of artificial intelligence, make it impossible to predict how police surveillance will evolve, the Fourth Amendment analysis must remain nimble even as it remains grounded in founding-era traditions," the George W. Bush appointee wrote in a 51-page opinion. "Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that defendants' ALPR system is capable of tracking the whole of a person's movements." > Davis drew distinctions from two significant precedents in determining that the pair's Fourth Amendment challenge lacked merit. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when it accesses a suspect's historical cell site location information without a warrant. The Fourth Circuit ruled in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department that the department's surveillance program, which captured and stored aerial images of nearly the entire city, violated the Fourth Amendment. > Davis ruled that, unlike in cases where the government tracked people's movements through cellphone data and aerial photos, the collection of Flock data does not capture enough information to catalogue citizens' movements in their entirety. Davis reasoned that the 176 cameras, located in 75 clusters across the city, do not constitute a search.
tptacek 8mo ago
This is going to happen in a lot of places that aren't large enough to make news: people dumping Flock over bad publicity, and simply installing ALPR cameras from vendors smart enough not to get themselves embroiled in politics.
- fusslo 8mo ago
  AXON seems to be really good about not pushing things too far. I don't know if they lobby/amplify the need for police body cameras, however. Even that, IMO, doesn't have the stench of evil They must be making huge profits, assuming every bodycam needs some kind of recurring revenue (for evidence.com, maintenance, replacements). BUT as far as I can tell, they are also taking the judicial requirements very seriously. Unlike Flock, I haven't heard anything about AXON providing tools to circumvent the 4th amendment. In fact, AXON makes tools that make it easier to comply with the law. For example, record requests for bodycam videos are (again, afaik) easy to satisfy with their tech. I don't know what ownership they have of videos stored on their services. Can they use it for LLM training? can they sell anonymized data? do they? no idea, but trust in Flock is at about a 0 out of 10.
  - reactordev 8mo ago
    AXON wrote the book that Flock put into practice. They have really great lobbyists that shield them from any news.
    - tptacek 8mo ago
      And yet you can see on this thread people saying this is a good thing, because Axon is the good kind of ALPR company and Flock is the bad kind. This is just WWF rooting interests, not public policy.
  - kylehotchkiss 8mo ago
    Standardized bodycam implementation nationwide was a fantastic improvement to policing post-2020. Axon seems to be king of that coast to coast. Watching bodycam video on YouTube has improved my perception of the police from "often unethical jerks" to "wow, I can't believe the nonsense these people have to deal with". Asshole cops now have to justify their behavior before judges and their bosses in a way maybe they didn't before. Freedom of Information requests to axon seem to be given our somewhat freely given how large the bodycam genre on Youtube is.
xnx 8mo ago
Seems like a good move. Lots of value to ALPR systems responsibly managed. Flock is just an ass of a company.
fundad 8mo ago
I thought Flock and Axon were affiliated.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- terrabitz 8mo ago
  No, two completely separate players. There was a partnership agreement a while ago, but that got severed a while back https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/axon-plans-to-sever-apis-with-flock https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/axon-plans-to-sever-apis-wi...
thaumaturgy 8mo ago
Here in Oregon, I very nearly managed to get some decent legislation drafted that would have required a number of strong data protections from ALPR vendors. Axon interfered heavily with that process and -- after the legislative workgroup had well concluded and just a couple of hours before the Senate committee was to vote on it -- managed to neuter one of the key protections in the bill. Axon is not "better" than Flock, they are just slightly less transparent about some aspects and slightly less radioactive. Community groups that have formed and activated against Flock should continue to harass local governments that immediately switch to Axon as a replacement.
- therobots927 8mo ago
  That’s good to know. I agree the cameras are the root problem. Flock exacerbated that problem and I think it’s good for them to get some negative publicity. You could say similar things about Palantir - that it’s just a figurehead and that the NSA / TIA has similar capabilities but it’s still important to use the figurehead as an example to others. But yes in general I think it’s important to not let this stop here. Denver needs to be pressured to remove the cameras entirely. This is a defensive move on Denver’s part and it shows they’re on their back foot.
- helterskelter 8mo ago
  Fellow Oregonian here. Have you got any local resources? I've been writing to my reps, framing ALPR's and cameras as a tool the feds will coopt, but I'm pretty sure nobody reads anything anymore.
  - thaumaturgy 8mo ago
    We've got lots of local resources! I've been in the capitol about half of the last two weeks, my partner is there right now, we've been working closely with ACLU Oregon and National, a couple of other legal firms are keeping a close eye on this, and we've built a grassroots network with people from Eugene, Springfield, Portland, Bend, Florence, and more. Also, your Reps do read your correspondence, and there's a critical moment coming up in this bill. Drop me a line at contact@eyesoffeugene.org and I'll reply with a Signal link and we can talk more.
officeplant 8mo ago
Evil Corp B has been demoted, Evil Corp A to take up the mantle.
- GorbachevyChase 8mo ago
  The computer vision cat is too far out of the bag. I don’t know how you can feasibly legislate that people can’t own a camera and send its output to OpenCV. Police already read plates with their eyes and can record those observations. The state of mass surveillance is so much worse than road cameras. This feels like a waste of everyone’s time.
  - niam 8mo ago
    The discussion is probably better started from the question of "why should that data be centralized?" and "why should the government be able to purchase this data, and why are those reasons more compelling than the downsides?". I have to guess that the folks clamoring to put computer vision "back in the bag" are somewhere on the margins, and resemble straw more than steel.
parineum 8mo ago
The service that Flock provides is the problem, not Flock. Switching to another company to perform the same task makes no difference.
psadauskas 8mo ago
Axon, the taser company? They're not any better, ethically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yd9nLQx3qQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yd9nLQx3qQ How about Denver just doesn't surveil its citizens, at all?
baggachipz 8mo ago
How about... and hear me out, here... no ALPRs? Perhaps we shouldn't be violating the Bill of Rights in the name of "safety"?
- pbnjeh 8mo ago
  If a person did to me what these virtual people (corporations) are doing, I could have them prosecuted for stalking.
exabrial 8mo ago
I'm glad Denver has solved the housing, drug, incarceration, and homeless crises and has money leftover to spend on this.
ProllyInfamous 8mo ago
More people need bicycle racks hung on their cars — all the time — which seem to fasten best when covering the license plate. ---- Many states do not consider a trailer hitch ball as "obstructing" the license plate... ...so I have a trailer hitch ball hung directly across my identifier, entirely obscuring the plate (but not "obstructing," to letter of poorly-written laws e.g. Tennessee's). Been rolling with it for months and nobody cares. Now I'm in Flock's database as the white Camry with no visible identifier (no bumper stickers nor tag visible). ---- First time you get cited for "obstructing license plate," in Tennessee, is a $10.00 fine. Second is $20.00. This state also doesn't require plates for trailers, so after my second citation I'll just start hauling my 2ft long canoe trailer everywhere (which conveniently covers license plate).
- 4d4m 8mo ago
  obfuscations are a unique fingerprint to these systems. It's not a defense IRL.
  - ProllyInfamous 8mo ago
    Yes, but I feel it's similar to wealthy individuals putting their homes into generic-named trusts, offering a simple shield from simpler surname database searches. i.e: yes, my vehicle is now "white car, obscurred plate" — but if Officer Joe Blow is searching for my specific license plate... he'd have to try harder (e.g. I have intentionally sped past a traffic camera to see if I get the ticket — have not, to date [0]). Obviously if you make yourself too big a target (i.e. manhunt level searching) this won't work. See <https://xkcd.com/1105/ https://xkcd.com/1105/>. I roll around GTA-one-star (or less), so this is helpful. [0] My state has entirely banned the enforcability of photo citations (except passing school bus == good), but a private company still sends out speeding notices — my obfuscation bare minimum saves somebody the postage fees.
BizarroLand 8mo ago
This sounds a lot like the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror "Citizen Kang" episode that ends with the human race enslaved and Homer saying, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kudos".

126 points by therobots927 8mo ago

downrightmike 8mo ago

Anti-Pinkerton Fed act: Gov't may not buy services that it is not legally allowed to do themselves.

josefritzishere 8mo ago
citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act_of_1893 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Pinkerton_Act_of_1893
tptacek 8mo ago
Municipal governments are extremely allowed to track license plates within their borders and have been doing so for generations.
- samrus 8mo ago
  But do they not need a warrant to track someones movements? Alot of these tech vendors have been a way to launder data gathering to avoid neeidng to get warrants
  - tptacek 8mo ago
    They need a warrant to physically alter or attach things to private property to track them. They don't need a warrant to post monitors and record what they see in plain view in public spaces with no expectation of privacy. The entire concept of a license plate, universal around the world, works against the idea that the state can't monitor your car. I'm not saying ALPRs don't pose new privacy problems and, in the long term, depending on how they're used, even constitutional problems. But clearly the Anti-Pinkerton Act doesn't get you anywhere here.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > They don't need a warrant to post monitors and record what they see in plain view in public spaces with no expectation of privacy. They do if it's done to the point where you can track individuals around the city. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495A.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495A.P.pdf > The AIR program uses aerial photography to track movements related to serious crimes. Multiple planes fly distinct orbits above Baltimore, equipped with PSS’s camera technology known as the “Hawkeye Wide Area Imaging System.” The cameras capture roughly 32 square miles per image per second. The planes fly at least 40 hours a week, obtaining an estimated twelve hours of coverage of around 90% of the city each day, 5 weather permitting. The PSA limits collection to daylight hours and limits the photographic resolution to one pixel per person or vehicle, though neither restriction is required by the technology. In other words, any single AIR image—captured once per second—includes around 32 square miles of Baltimore and can be magnified to a point where people and cars are individually visible, but only as blurred dots or blobs. > On the merits, because the AIR program enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements, we hold that accessing its data is a search, and its warrantless operation violates the Fourth Amendment
      - tptacek 8mo ago
        The decision you're citing explicitly cites precedent for the constitutionality of warrantless mounted pole cameras. Anyways, I'm not that interested in the broader long-term constitutional debate. I'm just interested in shutting down the glib Anti-Pinkerton cite.
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > The decision you're citing explicitly cites precedent for the constitutionality of warrantless mounted pole cameras. And explicity notes that it's the relative scarcity of them that matters. > Decades later, in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), location-tracking technology crossed the line from merely augmenting to impermissibly enhancing. There, police used a GPS-tracking device to remotely monitor and record a vehicle’s movements over 28 days. Id. at 402–04. Although the case was ultimately decided on trespass principles, five Justices agreed that “longer term GPS monitoring . . . impinges on expectations of privacy.” See id. at 430 (Alito, J., concurring); id. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Based on “[t]raditional surveillance” capacity “[i]n the precomputer age,” the Justices reasoned that “society’s expectation” was that police would not “secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” > Thus, Carpenter solidified the line between short-term tracking of public movements—akin to what law enforcement could do “[p]rior to the digital age”—and prolonged tracking that can reveal intimate details through habits and patterns. Put enough of them up, and the software to track between them, and you're in "enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements" territory.
  - mminer237 8mo ago
    It depends on how. The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches, not any information itself. The police can always just have an officer tail you 24/7, and it's perfectly legal. Placing a GPS tracker on your car physically invades your property and therefore counts as a search though. Generally any public photography is not a search, so they're free to record and keep records however they legally can. Though at some point, even SCOTUS just does whatever feels right, regardless of what the law says. In Carpenter, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that your cellular company voluntarily handing over historical cell data also counts as a government search. An appellate court has held that if photography is extensive enough, it becomes a search. SCOTUS has held before that uncommon photographic equipment can constitute a search. That logic honestly doesn't really make sense, but it is what it is now. I wouldn't be surprised that the courts rule against it, but that's not what the law really says.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  That may change as they get more widely deployed; scale matters. https://courthousenews.com/judge-holds-norfolks-license-plate-reader-use-constitutional/ https://courthousenews.com/judge-holds-norfolks-license-plat... > "Because rapid technological advances, such as the rise of artificial intelligence, make it impossible to predict how police surveillance will evolve, the Fourth Amendment analysis must remain nimble even as it remains grounded in founding-era traditions," the George W. Bush appointee wrote in a 51-page opinion. "Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that defendants' ALPR system is capable of tracking the whole of a person's movements." > Davis drew distinctions from two significant precedents in determining that the pair's Fourth Amendment challenge lacked merit. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment when it accesses a suspect's historical cell site location information without a warrant. The Fourth Circuit ruled in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department that the department's surveillance program, which captured and stored aerial images of nearly the entire city, violated the Fourth Amendment. > Davis ruled that, unlike in cases where the government tracked people's movements through cellphone data and aerial photos, the collection of Flock data does not capture enough information to catalogue citizens' movements in their entirety. Davis reasoned that the 176 cameras, located in 75 clusters across the city, do not constitute a search.

tptacek 8mo ago

This is going to happen in a lot of places that aren't large enough to make news: people dumping Flock over bad publicity, and simply installing ALPR cameras from vendors smart enough not to get themselves embroiled in politics.

fusslo 8mo ago
AXON seems to be really good about not pushing things too far. I don't know if they lobby/amplify the need for police body cameras, however. Even that, IMO, doesn't have the stench of evil They must be making huge profits, assuming every bodycam needs some kind of recurring revenue (for evidence.com, maintenance, replacements). BUT as far as I can tell, they are also taking the judicial requirements very seriously. Unlike Flock, I haven't heard anything about AXON providing tools to circumvent the 4th amendment. In fact, AXON makes tools that make it easier to comply with the law. For example, record requests for bodycam videos are (again, afaik) easy to satisfy with their tech. I don't know what ownership they have of videos stored on their services. Can they use it for LLM training? can they sell anonymized data? do they? no idea, but trust in Flock is at about a 0 out of 10.
- reactordev 8mo ago
  AXON wrote the book that Flock put into practice. They have really great lobbyists that shield them from any news.
  - tptacek 8mo ago
    And yet you can see on this thread people saying this is a good thing, because Axon is the good kind of ALPR company and Flock is the bad kind. This is just WWF rooting interests, not public policy.
- kylehotchkiss 8mo ago
  Standardized bodycam implementation nationwide was a fantastic improvement to policing post-2020. Axon seems to be king of that coast to coast. Watching bodycam video on YouTube has improved my perception of the police from "often unethical jerks" to "wow, I can't believe the nonsense these people have to deal with". Asshole cops now have to justify their behavior before judges and their bosses in a way maybe they didn't before. Freedom of Information requests to axon seem to be given our somewhat freely given how large the bodycam genre on Youtube is.

xnx 8mo ago

Seems like a good move. Lots of value to ALPR systems responsibly managed. Flock is just an ass of a company.

fundad 8mo ago

I thought Flock and Axon were affiliated.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
terrabitz 8mo ago
No, two completely separate players. There was a partnership agreement a while ago, but that got severed a while back https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/axon-plans-to-sever-apis-with-flock https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/axon-plans-to-sever-apis-wi...

thaumaturgy 8mo ago

Here in Oregon, I very nearly managed to get some decent legislation drafted that would have required a number of strong data protections from ALPR vendors. Axon interfered heavily with that process and -- after the legislative workgroup had well concluded and just a couple of hours before the Senate committee was to vote on it -- managed to neuter one of the key protections in the bill. Axon is not "better" than Flock, they are just slightly less transparent about some aspects and slightly less radioactive. Community groups that have formed and activated against Flock should continue to harass local governments that immediately switch to Axon as a replacement.

therobots927 8mo ago
That’s good to know. I agree the cameras are the root problem. Flock exacerbated that problem and I think it’s good for them to get some negative publicity. You could say similar things about Palantir - that it’s just a figurehead and that the NSA / TIA has similar capabilities but it’s still important to use the figurehead as an example to others. But yes in general I think it’s important to not let this stop here. Denver needs to be pressured to remove the cameras entirely. This is a defensive move on Denver’s part and it shows they’re on their back foot.
helterskelter 8mo ago
Fellow Oregonian here. Have you got any local resources? I've been writing to my reps, framing ALPR's and cameras as a tool the feds will coopt, but I'm pretty sure nobody reads anything anymore.
- thaumaturgy 8mo ago
  We've got lots of local resources! I've been in the capitol about half of the last two weeks, my partner is there right now, we've been working closely with ACLU Oregon and National, a couple of other legal firms are keeping a close eye on this, and we've built a grassroots network with people from Eugene, Springfield, Portland, Bend, Florence, and more. Also, your Reps do read your correspondence, and there's a critical moment coming up in this bill. Drop me a line at contact@eyesoffeugene.org and I'll reply with a Signal link and we can talk more.

officeplant 8mo ago

Evil Corp B has been demoted, Evil Corp A to take up the mantle.

GorbachevyChase 8mo ago
The computer vision cat is too far out of the bag. I don’t know how you can feasibly legislate that people can’t own a camera and send its output to OpenCV. Police already read plates with their eyes and can record those observations. The state of mass surveillance is so much worse than road cameras. This feels like a waste of everyone’s time.
- niam 8mo ago
  The discussion is probably better started from the question of "why should that data be centralized?" and "why should the government be able to purchase this data, and why are those reasons more compelling than the downsides?". I have to guess that the folks clamoring to put computer vision "back in the bag" are somewhere on the margins, and resemble straw more than steel.

parineum 8mo ago

The service that Flock provides is the problem, not Flock. Switching to another company to perform the same task makes no difference.

psadauskas 8mo ago

Axon, the taser company? They're not any better, ethically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yd9nLQx3qQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yd9nLQx3qQ How about Denver just doesn't surveil its citizens, at all?

baggachipz 8mo ago

How about... and hear me out, here... no ALPRs? Perhaps we shouldn't be violating the Bill of Rights in the name of "safety"?

pbnjeh 8mo ago
If a person did to me what these virtual people (corporations) are doing, I could have them prosecuted for stalking.

exabrial 8mo ago

I'm glad Denver has solved the housing, drug, incarceration, and homeless crises and has money leftover to spend on this.

ProllyInfamous 8mo ago

More people need bicycle racks hung on their cars — all the time — which seem to fasten best when covering the license plate. ---- Many states do not consider a trailer hitch ball as "obstructing" the license plate... ...so I have a trailer hitch ball hung directly across my identifier, entirely obscuring the plate (but not "obstructing," to letter of poorly-written laws e.g. Tennessee's). Been rolling with it for months and nobody cares. Now I'm in Flock's database as the white Camry with no visible identifier (no bumper stickers nor tag visible). ---- First time you get cited for "obstructing license plate," in Tennessee, is a $10.00 fine. Second is $20.00. This state also doesn't require plates for trailers, so after my second citation I'll just start hauling my 2ft long canoe trailer everywhere (which conveniently covers license plate).

4d4m 8mo ago
obfuscations are a unique fingerprint to these systems. It's not a defense IRL.
- ProllyInfamous 8mo ago
  Yes, but I feel it's similar to wealthy individuals putting their homes into generic-named trusts, offering a simple shield from simpler surname database searches. i.e: yes, my vehicle is now "white car, obscurred plate" — but if Officer Joe Blow is searching for my specific license plate... he'd have to try harder (e.g. I have intentionally sped past a traffic camera to see if I get the ticket — have not, to date [0]). Obviously if you make yourself too big a target (i.e. manhunt level searching) this won't work. See <https://xkcd.com/1105/ https://xkcd.com/1105/>. I roll around GTA-one-star (or less), so this is helpful. [0] My state has entirely banned the enforcability of photo citations (except passing school bus == good), but a private company still sends out speeding notices — my obfuscation bare minimum saves somebody the postage fees.

BizarroLand 8mo ago

This sounds a lot like the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror "Citizen Kang" episode that ends with the human race enslaved and Homer saying, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kudos".