Ready to be scanned? [Archive] (2024)

Mi Yatta

9th June 2004, 15:19

Seems the state of Ohio is playing with license plate scanners:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-06-09-turnpike-scan_x.htm

I guess it's a form of optical character recognition, and the results would be matched against a database that tracks serious crimes and stolen cars.

Sounds good on the surface, but it's not clear what safeguards, if any, are in place to prevent more extensive surveillance. And it only tracks the vehicle, not the driver or passengers. Of course, this has already tweaked the antenna of the ACLU, but I was wondering how people feel about having their whereabouts tracked like this.

Rich Wilkman

9th June 2004, 16:19

For some, I'd guess it depends on if they've ever rec'd a parking ticket in a city they've never been in due to a data entry error and then had to spend a lot of time and money to undo the damage.

But if you want to play the paranoia card, just follow the trail from hand entered items at the grocery store register to scanners to direct marketing campaigns based on what you bought. Or coupons printed out on your receipt for competing products to the ones you just paid for. They're watching and they know you just bought the gallon size tube of Preparation H! Who knows what they could possibly do with that information?

Any technology can be mis-applied. I'm waiting for when we RFID everyone on the convicted sex offender list instead of depending on them reporting themselves everytime the go somewhere.

-Rich

X Wing

9th June 2004, 16:40

mx5rush

9th June 2004, 16:41

Personally this sort of stuff is sort of scary. A bud of mine was sent a letter last year in St. Louis saying his car had been identified by a roadside emissions 'sniffer' with a passing grade, and he wouldn't have to get it retested this year! Bonus for him! But... what if you have your 'emissions legal' turbo or supercharger kit running at an illegal psi for fun? You're busted! You get a letter telling you to fix your car and come in and get it checked asap.

It does sort of freak me out that two of our local grocery stores are admittedly collecting info on you when you use your 'discount club' card to get the sale price at the checkout. They track everything I buy. It makes me paranoid that someone in Washington knows "the only issue of sports illustrated he buys is the swimsuit issue!" :D

"Wink wink nudge nudge!! Say no more!".

Mi Yatta

9th June 2004, 16:48

cmaclean

9th June 2004, 17:05

I feel paranoia spreading through this thread...

I see no problem with technology like that at all. All it does it automatically run your plate instead of a cop manually entering it into their laptop and waiting for results. Big deal.

If it gets one criminal off the streets I'm all for it. Your whereabouts can already be tracked so quit worrying. Do you use a credit card? Do you have a cell phone? A pager?

Newsflash. Are you a criminal? No? Then nobody cares.

mx5rush

9th June 2004, 17:14

There is a lot of truth to that post about if you're not a criminal... don't worry. My wifes bro just got out of the joint on a weapons charge... (they dropped the drug deal) and he's all paranoid that they are 'bust him' and send him back in. Well, don't do drugs and don't keep guns at home you moron! He looks at every cop with paranoia... because he's probably carrying right now, or has a joint in his pocket.

Still, with the abundance of traffic cameras popping up, and software that can distiguish your car out of the crowd... everyday 'crimes' like driving 5 to 10 over will soon be easily documentable even without radar.

RichDS

9th June 2004, 17:52

csmith

9th June 2004, 18:05

Rich Wilkman

9th June 2004, 18:27

For the paranoid -- maybe you could define (and point to the document granting) the personal freedoms this technology violates?

-Rich

Ford Prefect

9th June 2004, 18:56

Rich, IIRC, we're discussing the right to privacy, which is an emanation from the penumbra of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. While the right to privacy is being eroded in many ways, especially in and about our automobiles, there are some still small voices decrying that erosion. ;)

FWIW, from the perspective of the previous gubmint, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and a host of our national heroes were dangerous criminals. Imagine how successful they'd have been if George III had been able to track their movements.

Even paranoids have enemies. :p

jesse_lee

9th June 2004, 21:06

Sure, innocent people have nothing to fear. However, traffic laws being what they are, we're all guilty of something. Did you drive 66mph today.... oh well you're not so innocent anymore, Mr. John Smith. Did you step on that accelerator a little too enthusiastically from the stoplight? Ah, that's exhibition of speed. Did you try to chase that BMW through the twisties ? Aha- that's street racing. Did you come to a complete stop twice before proceeding through the right turn against the red? The camera caught you still rolling a wee bit... And how come your front license plate is missing?

And no, the scrutiny you are receiving has NOTHING to do with the fact that you have publicly criticized the Dear Leader, nor the fact that you belong to a religion that we have deemed most inclined to terrorism, nor the fact that your son didn't stand for the pledge of allegianc today..... We can't, of course, disclose why we targetted you for state security reasons. We can't tell you how many people are targetted, how many are prosecuted, why they are targetted, or who they are, due to state security reasons.....

sanglee007

10th June 2004, 01:18

Originally posted by cmaclean:
I feel paranoia spreading through this thread...
Newsflash. Are you a criminal? No? Then nobody cares. I bet your insurance company cares.

Sang 92/Mariner Blue

csmith

10th June 2004, 09:57

Originally posted by Rich Wilkman:
For the paranoid -- maybe you could define (and point to the document granting) the personal freedoms this technology violates?

-Rich Sorry, I just couldn't let this pass. Our freedoms are not "granted" by any document. They come from God. The US Constitution serves to place limits on a government that would take those freedoms away. Government does not give us rights, it only infringes on them. It is up to us to determine how much infringment is acceptable for the greater good. Maybe Constitutional Law should be a required high school class.

mx5rush

10th June 2004, 10:18

As long as I'm not scanned by Darryl Revok... :eek: I think I can handle it!

Quick, grab the ephemerol! :D

Chris_F

10th June 2004, 11:19

Coming to a state near you: Lots and lots and lots of automatically generated speeding tickets.

"Serious crimes". Right. Serious like doing 10mph over?

Rich Wilkman

10th June 2004, 11:35

csmith:

Guess a good old agnostic like me has no rights, then. "From God", indeed. Hope he shows up in court when you need him as a witness, otherwise you're just going to have to rely on those documents.

Perhaps you are confusing "free will" with the reality of the discussion?

-Rich

Rich Wilkman

10th June 2004, 11:43

Poppyco*ck cubed and squared! We're talking about a scanning device that can read the license plate you have on your car. You have no right to drive, but as part of the privledge of driving you must have a uniquely identified vehicle. Drive without your plate for a while and then try to claim "right to privacy" as your defense. Your vehicle has no rights.

I ask, again. What right or civil liberty does the technolgy in disucssion violate. I won't argue that there are plenty of real violations going on but knee-jerk bandwagoning just makes it harder to fight the real instances.

-Rich

Originally posted by 2K1 MX5:
Rich, IIRC, we're discussing the right to privacy, which is an emanation from the penumbra of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. While the right to privacy is being eroded in many ways, especially in and about our automobiles, there are some still small voices decrying that erosion. ;)

FWIW, from the perspective of the previous gubmint, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and a host of our national heroes were dangerous criminals. Imagine how successful they'd have been if George III had been able to track their movements.

Even paranoids have enemies. :p

csmith

10th June 2004, 12:00

Originally posted by Rich Wilkman:
csmith:

Guess a good old agnostic like me has no rights, then. "From God", indeed. Hope he shows up in court when you need him as a witness, otherwise you're just going to have to rely on those documents.

Perhaps you are confusing "free will" with the reality of the discussion?

-Rich Okay, substitute "Creator" for "God". As in "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". From the Declaration of Independance.

I didn't say that you couldn't look to documents which recognize our rights. Just that those documents themselves do not create those rights. A critical distinction.

But then, this is getting beyond Car Talk, so I will save the constitutional/philosophical/theological discussion for another forum.

Ford Prefect

10th June 2004, 12:01

Now, Rich, there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist. :rolleyes:

I frankly don't care whether you agree or not. You asked what folks were talking about, and I told you.

BTW, unlike the federal Constitution, where the Supremes had to resort to artifices like "emanations" and "penumbras" in order to protect what many of us viscerally feel is none of the gubmint's business, the California Constitution expressly recognizes your right to privacy. Whether it will be interpreted as extending to this technology remains to be seen. However, in this post 9/11 environment of sacrificing civil rights in the name of security, I have to doubt it.

Enjoy your drive. Big Brother loves you. ;)

[ 10. June 2004, 12:06: Message edited by: 2K1 MX5 ]

MX5inOZ

10th June 2004, 12:29

Mi Yatta

10th June 2004, 12:43

Originally posted by Rich Wilkman:
I ask, again. What right or civil liberty does the technolgy in disucssion violate.I'll take a stab at this... The technology itself is not the problem. Yes, you are correct, in its simplest form it merely scans the license plate every vehicle is required to display. I think what concerns many is what may or may not happen after that. Does it immediately discard the data if it doesn't result in a "hit" in the database, or is it archived for future data mining or other purposes? How accurate is the database?

In essence, were this type of system to be fully implemented, it would be possible to locate almost anyone using a car. Of course, those who don't want to be located (and still use a car) would likely find methods to defeat such a system using readily available products, and so the most likely ones to get caught would be those who may not have done anything.

Perhaps witnesses may have thought they saw a specific make and model and color of vehicle leaving the scene of a terrible crime. Police pull the license tag of every vehicle fitting that description and feed it into the scanning system. Within minutes they've located 25 matching vehicles and pull over every driver for a check. Given the serious nature of the crime that was just comitted, these police are not going to be very gentle with the "suspects," and it's entirely possible that some unsuspecting driver does something stupid and gets killed for it. Is that what we as a society want to live with?

Chris_F

10th June 2004, 13:33

Originally posted by csmith:
Okay, substitute "Creator" for "God". As in "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". From the Declaration of Independance.As an athiest (different than agnostic) I've always wondered who my creator was. I assume it was my Mom, however Dad had a role as well. Would a test-tube baby then have no rights? Or would the creator be the lab technician?

:)

Either way I sure am glad Mom and Dad granted me my rights. Unlike that "Malcom in the Middle" kid...

:D

Rich Wilkman

10th June 2004, 13:46

MiYatta:

If the inital contact point is to scan the license plate, what is the round trip to know where the car is? It's right in front of you -- you just scanned it! Tracking where the car has been parked? Not terribly useful if you don't know how it got there and there isn't a tracking device to let you know where anyone who has a car is (or even the car). I think the foil hats are getting a little tight to try and make this one into something dangerous and Big Brother-ish.

Every car is already in the DMV database and that DB is used by law enforcement (and has been since before the computer in the car when you had to get the dispatcher to call to get the info). Heck, in major cities they already key in the license plate when writing a parking ticket to check on wants and warrants.

As I said in my first post, anyone who's ever had to deal with undoing a ticket from a city where they've never been because of a lysdexic parking officer or data entry clerk knows what this is for.

I worry more about the non law folks who use their cell phone cams to take a picture of your credit card than a LEO taking a picture of my license plate.

-Rich

mrpresident

10th June 2004, 14:16

Ford Prefect

10th June 2004, 14:20

Rich, you seem to be missing a lot of the implications. Sure, Ohio is starting out with only two fixed scanners and two mounted on patrol cars, and it's starting out (supposedly) with a system that's not creating any recordings or data bases.

How that actually works might be interesting. If the system spots a stolen plate, does it merely buzz, requiring the officer to figure out why, or does it now flash the number of the plate that triggered it? If it's the latter (as it must be), it's got to preserve some record, or the officer can't later justify the stop. In other words, they're already lying to us.

They've already said they're going to expand the system if it works. If they want, they can put one on every corner. Now they can preserve all of the round trip information they want.

IIRC, the Consitution has been construed as prohibiting passport controls, etc., at state borders, as undue restrictions on the right to travel. (Remember being taught how evil the "Evil Empire" was for having checkpoints and requiring travellers to show their papers on demand?)

I also wonder why it's justified on the basis of stolen cars. Around here, car theft seems to be a "catch and release" offense. Seems like there's essentially no penalty for it unless the thief happens to get shot while trying to escape. :rolleyes:

You seem to argue that the scanners' interference with privacy rights is trivial. Perhaps it is. However, it doesn't require a tinfoil hat to recognize the camel's nose when it enters the tent.

Still, in our current environment, the courts are likely to agree with you.

FWIW

Keith

10th June 2004, 14:30

There's a toll highway in Ontario (around Toronto) that scans your plate when you enter and exit. You're then mailed a bill for the toll. It works perfectly transparently for the driver - no stop and go. I haven't heard of people getting charged incorrectly for it but I do know that if you're carrying bikes on the back and it blocks the cameras, you don't get billed :)

In Denver, I understand they have roadside sniffers. You can pass your emissions test via one (you get a card in the mail exempting you) but you can't fail it. After all, emissions need to be tested under certain conditions and full load is not one of them. So those with modified cars don't need to worry.

Technology can be good.

Keith

Rich Wilkman

10th June 2004, 15:06

2K1:

It's saving the driver or his partner from keying a plate in, so more volume can be processed for sure. If a stolen comes up from this system or from typing, the stop must be made(not allowed to ignore it).

What type of privacy rights do you have in a public space? Heck, the current privacy laws for your home only apply to straight folks.

-Rich

Ford Prefect

10th June 2004, 15:40

I'll acknowledge that privacy rights in a public space are limited, and seem to be getting more so. That doesn't make them nonexistant, however.

It's been a long time since I've really examined it, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to the recent developments. Still, unless it was recently changed (and I think it might have been), if you were walking down the street, under most circ*mstances you had no obligation to identify yourself to a LEO - even upon request. If these scanners are OK, from a legal perspective it's a fairly short step to endorsing facial recognition scanners (as have been employed at one Super Bowl, if not more, and have been proposed for airports), on every street corner. That would pretty much moot your right to withhold identification.

I understand video cameras are ubiquitous on the streets in English cities, in an effort to combat the IRA, so you can't go shopping in London without having substantially all of your movements recorded. That seems to be where we're heading.

I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, but it seems like a significant departure from our historical national philosophy. Didn't Ben Franklin say something like, "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security?"

Not wanting to get too far from car talk, I still think, in general, the gubmint should have no business in monitoring where and when I drive. I also like to be able to drive without worrying about whether a computer will decide I was in some bureaucrat's notion of a wrong place at a wrong time.

The difference between the Ohio setup (as it may be expanded) and Keith's turnpike is that (so far) it seems like the turnpike's system is used exclusively for private purposes.

[edited for spelling]

[ 10. June 2004, 15:47: Message edited by: 2K1 MX5 ]

Rich Wilkman

10th June 2004, 16:33

2K1

Under most circ*mstances you still do not have to identify yourself to a LEO but it sure looks suspect.

Walk into any casino and your face has been scanned. Same technology that has been used to arrest soccer holigans, vandals and everything else. For the most part, the computing power behind those timely systems is more than you'll carry around on the street (not to mention the terrabytes worth of storage). Yep, it'll be possible someday, but by then all the kids whose own parents have had them fingerprinted will be able to run block. The rest of us have our prints on file because we've either broken the law already or we were hired into a position of trust, security or government agency or some other situation where your background mattered.

This is simply a case of making something that has been "in car" for LEOs for about 10 years more automated. Pretty much the equivalent of moving from a modem to dsl.

I shudder to think how some of these folks would react if they actually read what they submitted to just by accepting their driver license. Seriously, next time you renew, flip the paperwork over to see.

There are bigger fish in this areana trying to get in the door. This one is already in your house and has been living there for quite some time. As far as an enabling technology, this one just doesn't make the grade.

Ford Prefect

10th June 2004, 17:07

Rich,

Believe it or not, I agree with most of the points you make.

Again, I'd distinguish between private and government conduct, which makes the casino example irrelevant.

You're right that cars are treated as exceptions to many Fourth Amendment principles. I might draw the line somewhat differently than the courts do currently, but realize they're balancing some important competing interests.

I'm not worried about my fingerprints being on file. The effort and expense involved with picking up a usable print and matching it against the database is, for practical purposes, a major limitation on the gubmint's ability to use them as a major intrusion on my life.

I can't picture the gubmint hiring enough LEOs to have them sitting on the corners typing in license plates. The effort and expense would be prohibitive. Even with the LEO and partner sitting in the patrol car, it would take too much effort to input even a significant fraction of the plates they see. Thus, as a practical matter they're limited to entering plates about which there's some reasonable degree of suspicion. (In many if not most cases, it would likely be enough to justify a "Terry-type" stop and frisk if we were on the sidewalk.)

The difference here is the degree of automation. Once the investment is made in the technology, the effort and expense required for each marginal expansion of its use become trivial. Once the scanner is set up by the highway, as a practical matter it costs no more to scan and record every plate than it does to scan one per day. Add enough scanners (and processing power - which I agree is trivial), and you can generate a pretty good record of every vehicle's movements. That's what makes this trend disturbing - at least to some of us.

Again, you seem to think this is trivial. Again, you may be right. However, saying that worse things are happening doesn't necessarily make this one desireable.

At this point, I've spent a lot of time on a discussion I never intended to enter.

Big Brother loves us all. :)

ABCandJRC

11th June 2004, 09:09

Originally posted by cmaclean:
I feel paranoia spreading through this thread...

I see no problem with technology like that at all. All it does it automatically run your plate instead of a cop manually entering it into their laptop and waiting for results. Big deal.

If it gets one criminal off the streets I'm all for it. Your whereabouts can already be tracked so quit worrying. Do you use a credit card? Do you have a cell phone? A pager?

Newsflash. Are you a criminal? No? Then nobody cares. Have you ever thought that the only thing that keeps you from being a criminal is that they just haven't passed a law against anything you regularly do (or get caught doing)? Or that they haven't the tools to catch you doing "normal" things already illegal? I mean just "disgusting things", not even immoral, or violent. That goes up another tree, doesn't it? Too much fat in your diet? A simple law makes you a wanted man. Think that funny? I bet all those smokers thought so back in 1980 about their "bad habit".

I would venture the opinion that in modern America, the average citizen has violated half-a-dozen laws by the time he eats his lunch every day. Nobody has had the tools to come after us all yet, but they are getting better at it. 1984 has not really passed, it is coming.

Mi Yatta

11th June 2004, 16:53

Rich,

I get the feeling you believe this technology is merely relieving the chore of manually tuyping in plate numbers. If that is all it is, it would probably be no problem. But as I read it, Ohio is installing two units (initially) somewhere on a road where it can scan every passing vehicle and, presumeably, pass that info on to come computer system somewhere. Now, if you extrapolate to assume many, many more units along roads, you have the potential for all sorts of tracking activities. This is not just about a scanner in a patrol car to eliminate the need to manually type in plate numbers.

Rich Wilkman

11th June 2004, 17:48

Ever hear of FastPass? Be more worried about that along with the camera at every bridge that lets you get mail if you go through the fast pass without paying (usually a lost tourist).

The Ohio one sounds like two at a toll road at a choke point and two on cars.

The stuff can be really fast. I bet you've never been inside a modern postal facility to see the HP developed scanning technology that recognizes handwriting at about 40mph. Same basic concept with less brains behind it.

As I said initially -- any technology can be abused.

-Rich

Mi Yatta

11th June 2004, 20:15

rrspare

12th June 2004, 01:05

"For the paranoid -- maybe you could define (and point to the document granting) the personal freedoms this technology violates?

-Rich"

Umm, 'Unreasonable search' ? Isn't that in the
Constitution?

MRGTX

12th June 2004, 10:01

One problem I see involves new powers the Gov has over us through the Patriot Acts. Two aspects of the Patriot acts that made my jaw hit the floor are that they can deport any immigrant- and more shockingly, strip ANYONE of their citizenship at any time. While they may or may not actually do this, they now have the power to.

It would not be a new phenomenon for political parties to dispose of people whose political beliefs are discordant with those of the party... and this kind of tracking provides a tool for this.

"Thoughtcrime does not entail death, thoughtcrime is death."

Rich Wilkman

12th June 2004, 11:24

Not even by squinting and stretching the words into a pretzel.

-Rich

Originally posted by rrspare:
"For the paranoid -- maybe you could define (and point to the document granting) the personal freedoms this technology violates?

-Rich"

Umm, 'Unreasonable search' ? Isn't that in the
Constitution?

Cienega32

12th June 2004, 19:35

Originally posted by 2K1 MX5:
Rich,

Again, I'd distinguish between private and government conduct, which makes the casino example irrelevant.
Far from irrelevant. Casino surveillance is mandatory & required by the state government run Gaming Control Board (as it's called in NV). The GCB is under the Nevada Gaming Commission whose members are appointed by the Governor. Casinos are under the strict guidance of the state. Every aspect of their operation is dictated by state regulation. The state looks at it as their money which you, as a casino owner, get a kickback from for making them a profit. Cheating/conspiracy to cheat are felonys. Money laundrying is a federal offense. Etc. etc.

The state GOVERNMENT (& the US Treasury in many situations) wants to know who you are. Facial recognition technology is a new and developing thing out here in casino surveillance and not yet required but the "G" - both state and federal - is very pleased with its progress. I'm sure it will be standard for the "Class A" (40 million+/year) licensees in the near future.

The only realistic private conduct by casinos is "reserving the right to refuse service".

What gets me nervous is everytime I get my car serviced by the dealer they scan in my door tag and they have (gulp!) my whole history on one of those dern-fangled computer things!!! :eek:

PrimerGrey

13th June 2004, 03:47

I don't know, but if they set these things up everywhere in the US, that's going to consume Alot of resources, and power, and space. I bet it costs alot too mantain also, especially when irate citizens use them for target practice, and they have to use the expensive tech guys to repair the things.

Do they work at night and in the rain and fog and snow? Maybe they have night vision components? If I were a thief, I bet I could make some serious money off the technology stored inside of one of these devices. Are they going to have security camera's or officers watching over these things? That makes it twice as complex and expensive etc, and sort of negates the whole purpose.

Do we even need this kind of technology? I think the time and effort would be better spent educating the public on driving correctly, and the consequences thereof, and whatnot.

1984...

bill keksz

13th June 2004, 06:42