5 ms·

This is similar to automated license plate scanning. There was a discussion here a while ago (can't find it now) about an article discussing the automated lice

This is similar to automated license plate scanning. There was a discussion here a while ago (can't find it now) about an article discussing the automated license plate scanners, and one of the posts had a really good point: our society's regulations about what law enforcement can and cannot do, and the citizenry's relationship with said law enforcement, are based on a certain amount of inefficiency. Hand-scanning license plates and requiring expensive helicopter crews to perform overhead surveillance are two good examples. When technology eliminates those inefficiencies, the rules and regulations need to be re-examined.

stretchwithme 12y ago
I think its bad to have the police capturing plates and locations. It would be better if private citizens with concerns could simply report plate numbers without location. If there is a plate associated with a crime, the police could respond by asking where it was seen and when, with no response the rest of the time.
- Gustomaximus 12y ago
  I have no problem with police scanning plates. It's quite efficient to spot people with warrants and cars out of registration etc. The problem is if they store details of everyone else. As long as they scan only for 'plates of interest' this actually seems like a useful tool to me.
  - clarky07 12y ago
    As noted in other place here and in the article, most of these technologies could be useful and good. Unfortunately they can also be easily abused, turning into very very bad. The question isn't whether there could be good, it's if the good outweighs the bad. And if it's close, it needs to be regulated and watched to be kept in check. I agree that the scanning could be helpful in many ways, helping find amber alerts, people with warrants, etc. It could also be very bad though, so we need to be careful.
mariodiana 12y ago
I'm flattering myself and thinking that you may be paraphrasing an argument I frequently make and have made on hear, but you're putting better than I usually do. To you point I would add that when we conceive these laws in the first place, we do so within a particular context of technology that forms our notions of what is public and private. The context completely changes when technology advances as radically as we've seen it advance. That's why we might not give two thoughts about an individual police officer tailing someone. But affixing cheap cameras, microprocessors, and location trackers to every aspect of public life isn't the "same thing," as the proponents of these tracking devices would have you believe.
- e12e 12y ago
  Indeed. This is not a new development: "The narrower doctrine may have satisfied the demands of society at a time when the abuse to be guarded against could rarely have arisen without violating a contract or a special confidence; but now that modern devices afford abundant opportunities for the perpetration of such wrongs without any participation by the injured party, the protection granted by the law must be placed upon a broader foundation. While, for instance, the state of the photographic art was such that one's picture could seldom be taken without his consciously "sitting" for the purpose, the law of contract or of trust might afford the prudent man sufficient safeguards against the improper circulation of his portrait; but since the latest advances in photographic art have rendered it possible to take pictures surreptitiously, the doctrines of contract and of trust are inadequate to support the required protection, and the law of tort must be resorted to. The right of property in its widest sense, including all possession, including all rights and privileges, and hence embracing the right to an inviolate personality, affords alone that broad basis upon which the protection which the individual demands can be rested." -- "Right to Privacy" Warren & Brandeis December 15, 1890 http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva... [ed: formatting]

stretchwithme 12y ago

I think its bad to have the police capturing plates and locations. It would be better if private citizens with concerns could simply report plate numbers without location. If there is a plate associated with a crime, the police could respond by asking where it was seen and when, with no response the rest of the time.

Gustomaximus 12y ago
I have no problem with police scanning plates. It's quite efficient to spot people with warrants and cars out of registration etc. The problem is if they store details of everyone else. As long as they scan only for 'plates of interest' this actually seems like a useful tool to me.
- clarky07 12y ago
  As noted in other place here and in the article, most of these technologies could be useful and good. Unfortunately they can also be easily abused, turning into very very bad. The question isn't whether there could be good, it's if the good outweighs the bad. And if it's close, it needs to be regulated and watched to be kept in check. I agree that the scanning could be helpful in many ways, helping find amber alerts, people with warrants, etc. It could also be very bad though, so we need to be careful.

mariodiana 12y ago

I'm flattering myself and thinking that you may be paraphrasing an argument I frequently make and have made on hear, but you're putting better than I usually do. To you point I would add that when we conceive these laws in the first place, we do so within a particular context of technology that forms our notions of what is public and private. The context completely changes when technology advances as radically as we've seen it advance. That's why we might not give two thoughts about an individual police officer tailing someone. But affixing cheap cameras, microprocessors, and location trackers to every aspect of public life isn't the "same thing," as the proponents of these tracking devices would have you believe.

e12e 12y ago
Indeed. This is not a new development: "The narrower doctrine may have satisfied the demands of society at a time when the abuse to be guarded against could rarely have arisen without violating a contract or a special confidence; but now that modern devices afford abundant opportunities for the perpetration of such wrongs without any participation by the injured party, the protection granted by the law must be placed upon a broader foundation. While, for instance, the state of the photographic art was such that one's picture could seldom be taken without his consciously "sitting" for the purpose, the law of contract or of trust might afford the prudent man sufficient safeguards against the improper circulation of his portrait; but since the latest advances in photographic art have rendered it possible to take pictures surreptitiously, the doctrines of contract and of trust are inadequate to support the required protection, and the law of tort must be resorted to. The right of property in its widest sense, including all possession, including all rights and privileges, and hence embracing the right to an inviolate personality, affords alone that broad basis upon which the protection which the individual demands can be rested." -- "Right to Privacy" Warren & Brandeis December 15, 1890 http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/priva... [ed: formatting]