5 ms·

Congress may impose license plate reader limits

22 points by zmanian 12y ago

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Not surprised to see police making a power grab and disregarding privacy. Police having ALPR and taking/keeping surveillance data on non-criminals is bad; but this is also problematic with private companies doing the same thing. Tow companies often have ALPR, and nothing that I am aware of prevents or restricts them from collecting and selling the data. Given the inexpensive nature of the systems, and their method of operation (optical detection) there isn't much that can be done with the current system to give people back some privacy. A better solution would be to completely do away with license plates and replace them with an un-powered RFID tag, possibly connected to a system that records each time it is read & some information about the transponder. Then make unauthorized reading & collecting of the rfid data an offense.
- hga 12y ago
  That ignores the utility of license plates for closing crimes. E.g. there was a day when I was in elementary school, my siblings and I had been picked up by my father, and he was about to make a left turn at a T that was also the crossing of a very dangerous road, one manned by a professional crossing guard vs. the student ones for suburban roads. A jerk blew right through it, almost ran down the crossing guard who threw her stop sign at him (I think she may have hit his vehicle), and my father was perfectly placed to make a fast left turn and follow the guy long enough to get his license plate. And he was busted based on my father's report. I don't see any way to square a RFID scheme with the need, or at least desire, to make such identifications.
  - rpedroso 12y ago
    At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, the utility of some means of surveillance in apprehending criminals is not itself a good enough criterion for justifying any means of surveillance. If it were, so the hyperbolic argument goes, we could minimize crime by locking people in cages. Of course, the two extremes are ridiculous and so we use a balancing test: how does the state's compelling interest compare to the cost to personal liberties. If 99.8% of license scans/photos are not useful for apprehending criminals, then I'm not sure the technology can be justified. Moreover, as the parent points out, license metadata is another tool that could be used by third parties (e.g. advertisers, insurance providers, etc). It seems to me like the RFID suggestion could solve (or at least help alleviate) the problem of third party scanning while preserving some of that utility for the police. This, combined with reasonable retention limits (14-21 days) would make the whole matter much more palatable to me.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    Personally, I tihnk the example you describe is rare and that most of the time eye-witnesses and even cameras only get a partial plate, if anything at all.
    - oh_sigh 12y ago
      How frequently is your privacy violated by having your license plate on public display? Is that also rare?
      - mvid 12y ago
        The point of the article is that your license plate being on public display allows for perpetual privacy violation, at rates that are only increasing.
      - Create 12y ago
        He said, "Because I don't have a license plate." I think he felt the normal rules just shouldn't apply to him. http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-got-away-not-having-license-plate/44224/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-got... http://www.cultofmac.com/126338/why-steve-jobs-mercedes-never-had-a-license-plate/ http://www.cultofmac.com/126338/why-steve-jobs-mercedes-neve... http://www.ehow.com/how_6197310_track-car-using-cell-phone.html http://www.ehow.com/how_6197310_track-car-using-cell-phone.h...
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        I can't say because I don't have any way to tell if an ALPR system has recorded my presence somewhere. I think that it is not rare, and that it becomes less rare every day.
- coleca 12y ago
  Not sure I understand how an RFID system would do anything to stop private companies from using ALPR. If anything it would be easier and more accurate for them and they could pick up far more plates per second since they wouldn't be limited to scanning just what is in the field of view of the camera. RFID would also let them read plates that previously were "invisible" to the computer vision systems such as plates with a cover on them, dirty or snow covered plates. I imagine it would only be a matter of time before private entities built a system to read the plates given the wide distribution of the spec that would be needed for police scanners to be built.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    An RFID tag would require an obnoxiously powerful transponder to be read from a great distance, and could not be read without alerting the owner (given appropriately equipped cars). A telephoto lens can read a license plate from a great distance while alerting no one. In the normal case, one would have to be in close proximity to read a car's RFID tag.
    - lxmorj 12y ago
      Also you wouldn't be able to detect an unlicensed car (someone who had disabled their RFID) casually, which would make it way easier to operate an unlicensed car. I suppose fake plates would do the same currently though.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        You can detect a car any number of ways. Detect a car without also getting an RFID and you can generate a report for a nearby traffic police to follow up on. We already use RFID for access in a number of places, such as tool booths. An RFID-less car would get noticed there, and I don't see any reason that police vehicles wouldn't be equipped with the transponders, so I think in some cases it might be harder than it currently is.

22 points by zmanian 12y ago

Not surprised to see police making a power grab and disregarding privacy. Police having ALPR and taking/keeping surveillance data on non-criminals is bad; but this is also problematic with private companies doing the same thing. Tow companies often have ALPR, and nothing that I am aware of prevents or restricts them from collecting and selling the data. Given the inexpensive nature of the systems, and their method of operation (optical detection) there isn't much that can be done with the current system to give people back some privacy. A better solution would be to completely do away with license plates and replace them with an un-powered RFID tag, possibly connected to a system that records each time it is read & some information about the transponder. Then make unauthorized reading & collecting of the rfid data an offense.

hga 12y ago
That ignores the utility of license plates for closing crimes. E.g. there was a day when I was in elementary school, my siblings and I had been picked up by my father, and he was about to make a left turn at a T that was also the crossing of a very dangerous road, one manned by a professional crossing guard vs. the student ones for suburban roads. A jerk blew right through it, almost ran down the crossing guard who threw her stop sign at him (I think she may have hit his vehicle), and my father was perfectly placed to make a fast left turn and follow the guy long enough to get his license plate. And he was busted based on my father's report. I don't see any way to square a RFID scheme with the need, or at least desire, to make such identifications.
- rpedroso 12y ago
  At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, the utility of some means of surveillance in apprehending criminals is not itself a good enough criterion for justifying any means of surveillance. If it were, so the hyperbolic argument goes, we could minimize crime by locking people in cages. Of course, the two extremes are ridiculous and so we use a balancing test: how does the state's compelling interest compare to the cost to personal liberties. If 99.8% of license scans/photos are not useful for apprehending criminals, then I'm not sure the technology can be justified. Moreover, as the parent points out, license metadata is another tool that could be used by third parties (e.g. advertisers, insurance providers, etc). It seems to me like the RFID suggestion could solve (or at least help alleviate) the problem of third party scanning while preserving some of that utility for the police. This, combined with reasonable retention limits (14-21 days) would make the whole matter much more palatable to me.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Personally, I tihnk the example you describe is rare and that most of the time eye-witnesses and even cameras only get a partial plate, if anything at all.
  - oh_sigh 12y ago
    How frequently is your privacy violated by having your license plate on public display? Is that also rare?
    - mvid 12y ago
      The point of the article is that your license plate being on public display allows for perpetual privacy violation, at rates that are only increasing.
    - Create 12y ago
      He said, "Because I don't have a license plate." I think he felt the normal rules just shouldn't apply to him. http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-got-away-not-having-license-plate/44224/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-got... http://www.cultofmac.com/126338/why-steve-jobs-mercedes-never-had-a-license-plate/ http://www.cultofmac.com/126338/why-steve-jobs-mercedes-neve... http://www.ehow.com/how_6197310_track-car-using-cell-phone.html http://www.ehow.com/how_6197310_track-car-using-cell-phone.h...
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      I can't say because I don't have any way to tell if an ALPR system has recorded my presence somewhere. I think that it is not rare, and that it becomes less rare every day.
coleca 12y ago
Not sure I understand how an RFID system would do anything to stop private companies from using ALPR. If anything it would be easier and more accurate for them and they could pick up far more plates per second since they wouldn't be limited to scanning just what is in the field of view of the camera. RFID would also let them read plates that previously were "invisible" to the computer vision systems such as plates with a cover on them, dirty or snow covered plates. I imagine it would only be a matter of time before private entities built a system to read the plates given the wide distribution of the spec that would be needed for police scanners to be built.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  An RFID tag would require an obnoxiously powerful transponder to be read from a great distance, and could not be read without alerting the owner (given appropriately equipped cars). A telephoto lens can read a license plate from a great distance while alerting no one. In the normal case, one would have to be in close proximity to read a car's RFID tag.
  - lxmorj 12y ago
    Also you wouldn't be able to detect an unlicensed car (someone who had disabled their RFID) casually, which would make it way easier to operate an unlicensed car. I suppose fake plates would do the same currently though.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      You can detect a car any number of ways. Detect a car without also getting an RFID and you can generate a report for a nearby traffic police to follow up on. We already use RFID for access in a number of places, such as tool booths. An RFID-less car would get noticed there, and I don't see any reason that police vehicles wouldn't be equipped with the transponders, so I think in some cases it might be harder than it currently is.