California Tracks Everyone Using Toll Transponders

obtuse writes "Direct monitoring of traffic sounds pretty cool, but some people don't want their toll transponders tracked. They aren't installing direct driver tracking for law enforcement now, but the collected data could be subpoenaed. Of course, anyone who didn't want to be tracked could just put it in the glovebox anyway, so they won't be catching clever felons or tracking real paranoiacs."

I can live with that.

[Skyshadow]

I don't have a big problem with toll records being accessible in criminal cases (aka, by subpeona). Many criminals *are* stupid, so if this helps catch them then I'm happy. Besides, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a bridge (which is why I try to keep the nose-picking to a minimum).

What I worry about it that leading to civil uses -- what if my wife's lawyer got records showing I was sneaking over the Golden Gate to visit my mistress (expensive booty call with the new tolls, BTW).

I wish there were some reasonable way to insure against a slippery slope. I would prefer to live in a country where it's easy to catch criminals without sliding into surveilling lawful citizens.

Automatic tickets coming up soon

[guacamolefoo]

The way to pay for this fancy new traffic monitoring is clearly to send tickets to everyone that goes from point A to point B in less time than it should take per the posted speed limit. Considering that we already have automatic red light and speeding traffic tickets (no police intervention required!), this seems like the next step for the "coddle you to death" bureaucrats to take.

Re:It could be cracked?

[Skyshadow]

Not to be contrarian, but the difference is that, in telling you her name, profession and travel habits, she's controlling the release of her information.

I think, basically, that's what most people want.

I wouldn't be against anonymous tags

[Erioll]

I think the idea of tags to track traffic if used for purely congestion purposes, and helping ems, etc finding the quickest way to some place, but not if able to be used for tracking individuals. Just make tags that everyone is required by law to have in their vehicles, but make them with no ID tags at all. Each transponder will basically be saying "yes there is a tag here" rather than "tag 13489023094 is here". It would allow better traffic flow dynamics with real-time data on how dense traffic is, while keeping anonymity.

Being able to be tracked, in any form, isn't a good thing for innocent people. Maybe (BIG maybe) for conviced child molestors, murderors, etc it'd be OK to have a unique ID, and police trackable, but for the innocent (remember innocent until proven guilty you big-brother types?), there should be NO means of finding them, even if they are a suspect in a crime. Police shouldn't have access to that kind of data on normal law-abiding people. And making the tags themselves "generic" will make it impossible for them to know.

Erioll

You asked for it!

[teamhasnoi]

Many rental fleets and big rig companies already use satellites and global positioning systems to track cars and cargo. Companies are promoting similar products to consumers who want to track their kids, Alzheimer's patients or cheating spouses.

If you have a wife that would put a Satellite tracker on you, she deserves to get cheated on. With multiple, ugly, crack-whores.

Trust me or don't marry me.

Re:Here's a tip to avoid this

[Pig Hogger]

Bike.

vehicle ID transponder installed by manufacturer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't you expect that manufacturers will build cars with permanent VIN transponders, required for car inspection, eventually?

Re:I can live with that.

[jflash]

**snip**
Besides, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a bridge (which is why I try to keep the nose-picking to a minimum).

Call me crazy, but I expect privacy while in my car. I don't expect to have to buy expensive counter-surveillance equipment (or use a mylar bag) to protect my privacy. I don't want even aggregate data about my whereabouts or preferences being known. Not because I have anything to hide, but because I don't.
ref: The Fourth Amendment [findlaw.com]

Not tracking individuals

[nucal]

According to the article:

Project leaders at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission say they're not interested in the movements of individual drivers, and have gone to great lengths to protect privacy, including encrypting the serial number of each transponder as its location is transmitted. They promise to keep this data separate from the identities of FasTrak users and other information needed to make automatic monthly deductions from their bank or credit card accounts.

"We're not tracking or trying to follow any individual car, just the overall traffic flow," TravInfo project manager Michael Berman said. "We're really trying to bend over backward to make sure we don't know."

But it feels like they are spying on me...

Re:I can live with that.

[Skyshadow]

What you expect, then, is anonymity. There's a difference.

Driving is a privilege

[Neil Watson]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. In order to gain that privilege you must expect to give up some privacy in order to protect the public.

They won't use it to issue tickets

[signe]

Quite simply, any jurisdiction that even has a fraction of a brain will not use an electronic toll system to issue tickets. If they do, people will stop using the electronic toll system. It's just that simple. The toll authority has just as much of an interest in having people use the electronic toll system as people do in using it to save time. More people using the electronic system means fewer people employed taking tolls and less traffic. They won't jeopardize that.

As far as tracking people using the transponders, I don't know that it's that bad a thing. Like they said, you can always avoid tracking by putting your transponder in a foil bag, and they're even going to provide them upon request (It's not a pain in the ass. I have two transponders, and they're only on the windshield when I am going through a tollbooth, because I have a convertible). That should show goodwill, at the very least. And California does have some of the worst traffic in the country. Any additional info on how it moves (or doesn't) is probably going to go a long way towards making it better.

-Todd

Re:This always bothered me

[cyb3r0ptx]

Here's the solution:

For people here in VA that have to take the Dulles Toll Road to work each day, some have to pass through 2 tolls (start and end). If you have one of those transponders, only use it once on your trip (i.e. pay the quarter to get on, and use the transponder to exit, or vice versa). That way, getting your average speed would be considerably more of a hassle (if not impossible).

Or just ditch the thing entirely and stock up on quarters.

Re:Automatic tickets coming up soon

[American AC in Paris]

The way to pay for this fancy new traffic monitoring is clearly to send tickets to everyone that goes from point A to point B in less time than it should take per the posted speed limit. Considering that we already have automatic red light and speeding traffic tickets (no police intervention required!), this seems like the next step for the "coddle you to death" bureaucrats to take.

Yeah, nothing like taking steps toward reliable, equitable enforcement of existing laws. Just think, you could suddenly start receiving tickets for breaking speed limit laws every time you break speed limit laws! Those fucking bureaucrats!

How the hell is some automated timer system supposed to differentiate between you, a good, God-fearin', tax-payin', hard-workin' Merr-kinn in a nice new Ford Explorer and that damned migrant worker in the shitbox VW Minibus?

It's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be enforcing all the laws on the books in an equitable, reliable manner, and all us decent folk will get sent upriver, too!

Re:This always bothered me

[r00tarded]

you're not free to break the law fuckhead. the 55 mph is the law, its not the law only if you get caught.

Re:Not personally identifiable... For now...

[Inominate]

Every single time any government agency says this, they simply mean "Untill you get used to it, and ignore it's existence. We'll gladly start tracking you once we think we can get away with it"

Re:I can live with that.

[jackb_guppy]

You are mixing two types of Public.

One my car is NOT Public place. I own my car and its contents. What I contain in my car is my business, where I take my car is my business.

My car can be viewed by the Public. There is no illusion that I can see out and you can not see in. In a limo with tinted windows, that another story. :-)

The police are allowed to look at a car see what is visible. In your example: your nake body and atrest you for "not being dressed". They can arrest in your home of the same reason, if they could see you in the window.

Re:This always bothered me

[Dannon]

you're not free to break the law...

I've recently been reflecting on the purpose of the law. I agree, as part of a civil society we choose to give up our freedom to do things that are against 'the law'. Why? Well, to secure Life, Liberty, and Property, according to the founders of this country.

So, why do we have laws imposing a 55mph speed limit? To preserve life, as such speed limits theoretically reduce the number of innocent people transformed into road pizza by some confused drivers who might otherwise confuse small-town roads with the European Autobahn.

So again, back to my original point, and I'll pretend I'm a Californian for a moment. Why should the State Patrol be allowed to use this transponder data to catch speeders? Well, if it can be proven to save lives without an unreasonable cost in tax dollars (and yes, you can put a price tag on a life, just ask any insurance company), then I would be for it. If, on the other hand, it's just to force people into obedience of the law for the law's sake, then it starts to be an abuse of freedom.

Re:It could be cracked?

[Eristone]

Actually, you opt-in when you decide to use the gadget. You can opt out by turning off the service/not using it.

Re:Okay

[Ironica]

More like, if we choose to wear a device that broadcasts our information in order to make transactions faster and easier, we shouldn't necessarily expect that that information won't have other uses in the aggregate.

It's like if you shout your phone number across a crowded room at a friend, and then get mad at a stranger for hearing it. You make a choice what information to make public; but once you do, you don't always get to choose what happens to it.

Re:Driving is a privilege

[kcbrown]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Really? Well, then, I guess walking must also be a privilege, yes?

Oh, so you think walking is a right but driving is a privilege, huh? Then, pray tell, what is the difference between the two? Safety? Then how about riding your bicycle? Is that a right or a privilege?

Think it's a matter of whether or not you do it on "public" property? Well, "public" property is property owned by us, the people. If there is any property we have the right to use, it's public property. But for you to be consistent in using the "public property" argument, then walking on the sidewalk (public property) must be a privilege, not a right.

Understand this: the entire point behind the founding of the U.S. was to give the people the right to do any damned thing they please so long as in doing so they don't interfere in the rights of others.

In just over 200 years we've gone from that to the belief that most things are "privileges" to be given or taken away at the whim of the government (and the corporations that control it) we're now so obviously subservient to. It's enough to make any freedom loving person ill.

Re:It could be cracked?

[Ironica]

You have an opt-out feature on all of those items. Just don't use them. None of them are essential.

When it comes to private companies selling my personal information to make more money, so that other companies can direct-market at me and make more money, opting out makes sense. But when you're talking about them wanting to be able to find a phone that dialed 911, well... that's often my biggest fear; that I'll get to the phone in time to call, but not be able to tell them my location fast enough. Right now, they have no way of finding me unless I tell them. (If you call from a landline, the information automatically comes up, and there's no way to block it. You also can't block Caller ID information from showing up when you call a toll-free number, because if you're calling just to run up their bill, they can seek restitution.)

You're talking about the government (you vote for them, unless you're silly enough to complain about them and then stay home on election day like it's somebody else's problem), not private companies. They're a non-profit entity. You (and a few million of your friends) can fire them from their jobs. If you're afraid of government abuse, keep your eye out, and make sure your representatives know your concerns. Heck, sponsor an initiative referendum for a citizen's oversight group, if you really don't trust them with this info.

Re:I can live with that.

[blank_coil]

"If you don't believe that what you are doing is not immoral, then why hide?"

I believe this is known as a non-sequitor. I ask you this: If I don't believe that what I am doing is not immoral, then why should I make it visible to everyone? Whether or not I choose to hide something that is not illegal is my own call to make, and should have no bearing on whether I'm allowed to do it. If I choose to hide something from you, that's none of your business.

Re:I can live with that.

[curril]

Your concern over tracking anti-government demonstrations is a good and realistic example, however. Here in Denver, Colorado we recently had a major flack over the police keeping a surveillance database on people people who attended demonstrations. While such behavior is 'legal', having police follow you home has a definite chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The fact is that government surveillance is 'harmless' for law-abiding citizens except in rare cases where a person in a position of trust abuses it. But that presumes that the laws are popular and just. For example, a significant percentage of the US population flagrantly violates various drug control laws. You could argue that better enforcement of these laws would be a good thing, or you could argue that these laws are unrepresentive and enforcement would result in the unfair subjugation of a large minority. Feel free substitute the hot-button issue of your choice, such as abortion, sexuality, race, etc.

A few other "dramatic" possibilities:

• Crime ring breaks or bribes its way into the database to rob your home while you are away.
  
• Coincidence and bad luck place you and a suspected terrorist at the same place at the same time often enough that you get flagged as a possible sympathizer.
  
• Tracking becomes so common that it becomes compulsory, evading it becomes suspicious or even illegal.
  

It will be automated like the Toronto highway

[aoeuid]

In the future there might not always be those people working in the toll booths, and this sets a bad precedent.

Take the new 407 Highway in Toronto Ontario. It is completely automated. It uses transponders, and if you don't have a trasponder it snaps pictures of your license plates. There is no stopping anywhere to pay tolls, whether or not you have a transponder.

So while you may think its an option to just use the pay booths right now, wait a few years down the road until your state goes completely automated like Toronto, and then you won't have a choice at all. Don't let the precedents be set now.