NYPD Anti-Terrorism Cameras Used For Much More 400
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the NY Times:
"The Police Department's growing web of license-plate-reading cameras has been transforming investigative work. Though the imaging technology was conceived primarily as a counterterrorism tool, the cameras' presence — all those sets of watchful eyes that never seem to blink — has aided in all sorts of traditional criminal investigations. ... 'We knew going into it that they would have other obvious benefits,' Mr. Browne said about the use of the readers in the initiative. 'Obviously, conventional crime is far more common than terrorism, so it is not surprising that they would have benefits, more frequently, in conventional crime fighting than in terrorism.'"
really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also every piece of information any corporation or state has or can collect on you will end up being used for more than you expected.
If you don't like it, stop developing the tech. Because if it exists, it will be used against you.
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
"If a link is found, a small alarm sounds, Mr. Browne said."
I enjoy Mr. Browne's rhetorical use of a diminutive conditional adjective. A "small alarm" really isn't such an obstacle to the path of civil liberty? No?
The whole matter is hardly one over which to raise a concern. In fact, I'm surprised that the topic is newsworthy - really. Why such subtle psyops in the pages of the New York Times?
Re:raise a concern (Score:5, Insightful)
Dang Internets and the lack of voice nuance...
I can't tell if you're doing satire or if you believe your last line.
Meanwhile, this is newsworthy because we've seen part 1 of this charade for a decade now ... "We need a Billion Dollars to fight one Afghani guy and his ten friends!"
This time they're actually admitting "Hey look, our billion dollar toys are fun! And so is power."
Re: (Score:3)
The existence of a "New York Times" is itself, a "psyop". ;-)
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does the government have a right to monitor the movements of an entire city's population when 99% have probably done nothing wrong.
Also does this just check a database at one time or does it log it saying license ABC 123 went by bridge a at 8:05 am and passed office B at 8:15 am, etc.
Re:really?! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin
Erle Stanley Gardner mentioned an obvious corollary to this:
"For every innocent person convicted a guilty person walks away free"
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said this before, and people thought I was an asshole who didn't know what he was talking about. I'm going to keep repeating it until current events cause it to make some sense.
Who gives a shit about the cameras that the police have. You only need to worry about your own cameras. When you are prohibited from owning your own camera and taking pictures in public of public activities, including police activities, that is when you should worry.
There, make sense? All you people who think 1984 is all about Big Brother's cameras got it wrong.
Re:really?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, think of it as another great reason to take public transport.
With your new bar coded RFID tagged bus pass?
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mistakes, incompetence and mis-applied prosecutorial incentives are just a few of the reasons that this development should be viewed with prejudiced outrage.
The recent case of an innocent man, narrowly escaping capital execution [nytimes.com] on the basis of deliberate prosecution dishonesty [nola.com] and evidence manipulation should be enough to dissuade anyone who is burdened wit the notion that this "evidence" is just another publicly disclosed fact, that will be judiciously examined on objective merits.
In fact, the US Supreme Court overturned the judgement in favour of the Defendant in this case - effectively saying that collateral damage is an expected outcome in the Executive pursuit of law enforcement.
I am again reminded of the case of Harry Buttle, in the movie Brazil.
Re: (Score:3)
While this is true, I know I'd rather suffer at the hands of a criminal than at the hands of my government.
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does the government have a right to monitor the movements of an entire city's population when 99% have probably done nothing wrong.
The whole point of the current structure of the law is that EVERYONE is in some manor, a violator of some local, state, or federal statute. This makes it a lot easier to get all but a few people to shut up, move along, and keep their heads down... lest the focus of law enforcement swing towards them....
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
And since when do women have a right to not have their behinds or cleavage photographed while they bend over to pick something up in public?
I mean, anyone can see it...
Re:really?! (Score:5, Insightful)
And since when do women have a right to not have their behinds or cleavage photographed while they bend over to pick something up in public?
I mean, anyone can see it...
A Frenchman and a Spaniard walk down the street when a woman slips and falls revealing everything.
The Frenchman helps her up saying
-"C'est la vie, madam!"
The Spaniard says indignantly
-"Hombre, yo tambien se la vi, pero no se lo digo porque soy un caballero!"
(OT: the Spanish punctuation and accents don't work on /.)
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary. The tech is here. All you can do is develop counter tech. Make sure they can't trace you, like that guy in Gattaca.
Re: (Score:2)
When I got back home I found a message on the door
Sweet Regina's gone to China crosslegged on the floor
Of a burning jet that's smoothly flying:
Burning airlines give you so much more.
How does she intend to live when she's in far Cathay?
I somehow can't imagine her just planting rice all day.
Maybe she will do a bit of spying
With microcameras hidden in her hair.
I guess Regina's on the plane, a Newsweek on her knees
While miles below her the curlews call from strangely stunted trees.
The painted sage sits just as
Re: (Score:3)
Well, as long as it makes their jobs easier... (Score:3)
It's funny (Score:3, Funny)
Leaving blood and semen samples along with my fingerprints is what got me in trouble with police in the first place.
Re:Well, as long as it makes their jobs easier... (Score:5, Interesting)
a guy goes into the doctor's office for an annual physical.
the doctor says "I'll need a blood sample, a semen sample, a urine sample and a stool sample."
guys says "here, doc, that's my underwear. has everything you are asking for."
Re: (Score:3)
But how can you be sure that the person asking for your underwear over the Internet is really a fed?
Records retention? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
>The license plate readers are different from other security cameras in the city: they are aimed low, designed to focus on a small area, unlike traditional surveillance cameras which look at broader sections like a toll plaza or the entrance of a building, Mr. Browne said. The information collected is immediately checked against databases storing information on stolen cars, stolen license plates, wanted persons and unregistered vehicles.
Well, the cameras themselves doesn't seem so bad, but does anyone know how long data is retained? I don't want to be leaving records of where I've been for years...
Re: (Score:3)
FTA: >The license plate readers are different from other security cameras in the city: they are aimed low, designed to focus on a small area,
Well, the cameras themselves doesn't seem so bad, but does anyone know how long data is retained? I don't want to be leaving records of where I've been for years...
Then the single thing I can suggest you: place you license plate higher than the level the cameras are aimed. Because you don't have anything to say (that will still be listened) in regards with how long the recordings are retained.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"just having someone write some code to let the car's laptop automatically process and run the plate on every car they pass."
They're just on the verge of it though. I know I saw a story recently about either a proposed or prototype system of this. It was going on about how officers can only run X per hour, the auto system runs 10 times that etc.
Meanwhile nice catch on a cute loophole funneling info through private companies to get around retention lengths.
I swear this stuff is a game that requires gamer-sty
Re:Records retention? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Isn't there a statute of limitations? :-)
Seriously, the right to conduct oneself privately is the foundation of all civil liberties. This is is why the 4th amendment to the US Constitution specifically prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
"Unreasonable" has become the elastic operative through which the courts and executive have made impotent, the entire function of that amendment.
The role of the ubiquitous camera in conjunction with the compulsory license plate is just an abstraction of "Show me your papers, please" internal checkpointing - beloved of Inspector Jabert and Heinrich Himmler.
So, yes. The cameras themselves are indeed bad - the fact that you fail to perceive them as such? Just a sign of how irredeemable the loss of basic rights has become in your country.
Re: (Score:3)
Inspector Javert [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Records retention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already happening, already too late, complete and utter surprise? Not so much.
A surveillance society takes an exceedingly short period of time to decide that the initial justifications for these things has so many other handy uses. Governments are completely interested in monitoring and recording everything so that eventually when they need something against you, they have it on file. Even the governments who pretend to be protecting "freedom" and the like.
There's a reason why all of this stuff has been rich fodder for sci-fi for decades ... because you can see it coming, and pretty much anticipate the results.
Terrorism was the stated reason, but they're not going to miss out on using a treasure trove of such information. Give it time, and there won't be a single free society on the planet ... least of all, the Western democracies who still pretend to be.
I may sound like my tin-foil hat is cutting off the blood supply, but it's hard not to see all of the dystopian stuff unfolding before us. Stuff that has happened in my life time was a work of fiction 50 years ago.
Re:Records retention? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think that the dangers to "freedom" are somewhat overblown. What is legal and what is not has not changed. The difference is that our society has become a great deal better at actually monitoring individuals.
In some ways, however, it is really only a step backward in time. I grew up in a small town, and I became used to the idea that everyone around me knew who I was (and who to contact if I should step out of line). You worry about the government watching you, but from personal experience I think that you would be much better off to worry about your immediate neighbors. They are the ones that actually care about what you are up to, and it is your reputation with them that is actually most likely to effect your behavior. Yes, it is possible that the government might compile evidence of impropriety, but the worst they will realistically be able to do is tell your neighbors.
Unless, of course, you are talking about actual illegal activity, in which case you *should* be arrested. That's why we have laws.
For most of human existence it has been very difficult to hide improper behavior from your neighbors. Historically, we have lived in relatively small, very tight-knit communities, and your business was your neighbors business. The idea that you could go out in public and be anonymous is a relatively new idea. Apparently it is likely to be a short-lived idea as well.
If your definition of "freedom" includes being able to hide improper behavior from your neighbors, then yes, your freedom is in jeopardy. On the other hand, you only have to log on to facebook for a minute to realize that most people are more than happy to share the details of their life with whoever happens to be on the Internet. Most people seem to be willing to share details about their personal lives than even folks like me, that grew up knowing our neighbors' business, find uncomfortable. You can't blame government for that though.
Re:Records retention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your neighbors and yourself generally were presented to one another as equals, and thus they gave you a certain degree of respect and expected the same in return. You both had a shared interested in the type of lifestyle that is possible in the community. On the other hand the new government watchers are invisible. They see you from a great distance and you don't see them at all. They have nothing to fear from you so they have no reason to treat you with respect. They are not your neighbors, they are strangers.
I don't need to have my actions monitored just in case 20 years from now I can be prosecuted for things I do now which are legal.
What guarantee do I have that no future government will ever decide to punish people retroactively for acts they committed before the act was illegal?
i.e. blasphemy against private healthcare, saying bad things about the meat industry, about the church?
my neighbors aren't part of some vast system of control designed to outlast any individual human. they just want to live their lives in peace, and some day die. and thats all.
Government are self perpetuating systems. we should not simply assume government wont turn bad.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, at least, you have constitutional protection from being retroactively tried and convicted under what would be called an ex-post facto law. It's one of the few restrictions that is without exception placed on state and federal legislatures.
They used to say that about habeas corpus.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. It's not that long ago that it used to be illegal for men to have sex with other men. Alan turing and Oscar Wilde were both convicted of it. Also, it's not until recently that it became illegal to grow cannabis. People used to make canvas out of the stuff, and other things besides. Laws change, and not always for the better.
Re: (Score:3)
If your definition of "freedom" includes being able to hide improper behavior from your neighbors, then yes, your freedom is in jeopardy
My definition of freedom includes being able to hide proper behavior from nosy, overly judgmental neighbors. Why are you so willing to let the neighbors determine what is proper and improper behavior?
Re: (Score:3)
> If your definition of "freedom" includes being able to hide improper behavior from your neighbors, then yes, your freedom is in jeopardy.
If by improper you mean "anything your neighbors would disapprove of" then no, I don't think the dangers to freedom (not in quotes) is overblown.
Conspiring to overthrow the city council next election? Having wild rabbit sex before 9pm? Dress in overalls and then NOT go weeding your lawn?
>but the worst they will realistically be able to do is tell your neighbors.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just say I find this particular statistic very hard to believe. Perhaps I would be less skeptical if you could come up with an example of a law that I break without knowing about it that could land me in prison.
I certainl
Re:Records retention? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/ [threefeloniesaday.com]
There is a bill before the California state legislature right now that would make it a crime to offer, in a public location, to sell a dog or cat. (No actual animal need be present.) "Hey Joe," you tell your huntin' buddy as you walk from the parking lot into the bar, "my dog had pups. Still want to buy one?" Under this bill, you've just committed a crime. The penalty? Up to $20,000 fine and one year in jail.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_917_bill_20110218_introduced.html [ca.gov]
Where is the outcry over this absurdity?
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us are not so selfish as to only worry about things that affect us directly.
Somehow that doesn't lead me to think any better of you.
Re: (Score:2)
who cares how long its retained for? I don't really mind if someone wants to know where I was on Tuesday the 8th 1986. No, its them knowing where I am today that worries me more.
Re: (Score:3)
Choice of denomination (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, conventional crime is far more common than terrorism, so it is not surprising that they would have benefits, more frequently, in conventional crime fighting than in terrorism.
So obviously, calling them 'anti-terrorism cameras' is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a lie. It's PR. It's spin. It's a euphemism. It's misdirection. But not a lie!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen any terrorism around those cameras? No? Well then....
Safe Slumber (Score:3, Funny)
I can't wait til this becomes a nationwide practice so that all civilians can feel safe knowing that the terrorists and criminals are being actively monitored and will never ever harm us again.
Life Imitates Slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)
- Meringuinoid, on Slashdot, ca. 2005 [slashdot.org].
Re:Life Imitates Slashdot. (Score:4, Insightful)
A slight quibble here: They (in general, or the guy giving the answer) may or may not *intend* to use the law that way, but it's quite safe to say that the law *will* get used that way if passed.
If an agency director goes to Congress asking for new power XYZ, he may genuinely believe that the intent is to do something totally different from what the civil libertarians are worried about. Now, he may have been misled by his subordinates, or his successor might decide "hey, look at what I can do!" Alternately, of course, he may be the nefarious bastard who knows better but pretends otherwise. Since the basic rule of investigation is that every government official will say exactly what they need to say in order to save themselves, we'll never really know for sure.
Re:Life Imitates Slashdot. (Score:4, Insightful)
A slight quibble here: They (in general, or the guy giving the answer) may or may not *intend* to use the law that way, but it's quite safe to say that the law *will* get used that way if passed.
You're too generous. If they don't intend for the law to be abused, they will put in safeguards against it. If there's not a clause in the law saying "no section of this law shall be construed to allow X" coupled with appropriate penalties should X occur, then the author of the law fully intends for X to happen. Any claims otherwise are blatant lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Even if Director #1's intentions are completely honorable, he won't be in charge forever. Director #2 might abuse it or Director #3 might or Director #4. Or they all might just slightly alter the project's aim bit by bit so that you don't notice at all when it has been changed completely.
Years ago, when the Bush administration was claiming massive Executive Branch power, I'd always ask how people would feel about a Democrat using that power. At the time, I used Hillary Clinton since she seemed
Urbanization (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why my desires run counter to the reverse diaspora toward increased urbanization.
Just build the giant, sealed arcologies already, let the social engineering wonks have them, and let the rest of us live in more rural setting in peace.
Re:Urbanization (Score:5, Insightful)
I grew up in a small town. In small communities everyone tends to know your business in a way that people from the cities (or even the suburbs) would find very disconcerting. If you are worried about people watching your every move then a rural setting is not a Utopia.
Re: (Score:3)
This is always something I like to bring up whenever I'm in a discussion about privacy. Invariably, someone claims that the fact that we're losing privacy is some new development, when in fact the idea of having privacy is a new development in our civilization. It takes anonymity in order to have privacy, and you can't have anonymity unless you have a large enough population to be lost in the noise. In the villages of yore, everyone knew who the whore was.
I think more accurately the privacy discussion of to
Hah! (Score:2)
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
NYT = fail (Score:3, Insightful)
please, STOP posting links to this horrible site!
I get a login screen. is that what you wanted me to read? ok, I read it. it said 'login'. I did not play its game. I saw no article.
didn't we all agree to start ignoring NYT? what happened subby? no other source?
poor showing. just poor showing, man.
and no, I will not 'login'. this is NOT what the web was supposed to be about.
PLEASE STOP SUPPORTING NYT.
thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Son, if you're looking for news, you need to find a new teat to suckle. Slashdot is dead, has been for a very long time.
Re:NYT = fail (Score:5, Funny)
"if you're looking for news, you need to find a new teat to suckle"
Robin Meade on CNN comes to mind.
Re:NYT = fail (Score:4, Insightful)
a.k.a. "Cops No Longer Looking At License Plates" (Score:5, Informative)
The Law of Unintended Consequences [wikipedia.org] will probably come into play here. As camera systems - especially ones mounted on cop cars - get better at reading license plates, law enforcement officers will probably come to rely on them more. I.e. they'll pay less attention to your plates. So one conclusion that might be draw from this is that if you hide/obfuscate your plates, you're more likely to get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
And these cameras won't flag on vehicles where they can't find a registration tag?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the system. Unless the devices are going to flag when the camera is pointed at ordinary things like mailboxes, they probably won't be able to tell a car bumper from a regular wall. Obscuring license plates could become a simple hack, the same way smiling in a mugshot ruined facial recognition apps.
Re:a.k.a. "Cops No Longer Looking At License Plate (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, except I will cynically say that at the very least, this could be seen coming a mile away and was pointed out by people as having this very likely outcome. At very worst, the people who were planning this very much knew and intended that this would happen. They just either convinced us to the contrary, or picked the most naive spokesperson they could find who loudly said "Oh, they'd never do that".
By the time people clue in, it's t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the unintended consequence at some point will likely be that you'll get pulled over because the computer could not read your license plate automatically, even if it is NOT expired. The computer will handle all of the plates that it can handle automatically, and the human operator will be signaled when the computer fails. Personally, I would rather get the automated response (even if it is a ticket) than have to deal with a police officer.
And I like *like* police officers.
Re: (Score:3)
Having been hauled into court because my car's license plate "was obscured" (equipment failure) by road grime and exhaust residue, I urge you to reconsider.
I have also heard reports that some of those license plate covers - that incidentally make it difficult for red light cameras to capture your license plate - have been outlawed.
http://www.phantomplate.com/print_delaware.html [phantomplate.com]
http://www.banoggle.com/products/ontrack/photo-blur.aspx [banoggle.com]
Both pages offer such products, both pages acknowledge that some jurisdictio
Money is no object (Score:2)
Sounds expensive. Good thing we're rich!
How many? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So how many terrorists have these cameras caught?
All both of them.
Special cameras for Bad Guys (Score:3)
statistics on the threat of terrorism (Score:3, Informative)
While we`re constantly being told that another attack is imminent and that radical Islamic fundamentalists are two steps away from establishing a caliphate in Branson, Missouri, just how close are they? How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations?
The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control was used.
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
You are 11,000 times more likely to die from a misdiagnosed medical condition or botched surgery by an incompetent doctor or misuse of perscription drugs than a terrorist attack
You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack
You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack
You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to argue against the impact on crime that the cameras have
Actually it's very easy to argue that. Many studies suggest that cameras don't do anything to deter crime. They may assist in the subsequent investigation and occasionally even provide the evidence that wins a criminal conviction but there is a bit of a difference between that and deterring/preventing crime.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
In short, criminals are too stupid to be deterred by an increased threat of actually getting caught.
For the rest of us the idea that cameras make investigations easier (and therefore less expensive), and provide evidence that puts actual criminals in prison can generally be considered a win.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing really to do with stupidity. People tend to forget that they're being watched. It's a coping mechanism, I think. We can't always be on guard.
Where I work, there are cameras all over the floor. I KNOW that. And I'll still forget every once in a while that those are there. Then I'll see one, and I'll think "Oh, yeah... everything I do is being recorded. Have I done anything embarrassing lately?"
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
I've worked in that sort of an environment as well, and you are correct. After a bit you fail to notice the cameras. However, there is a huge difference between doing something that is merely embarrassing, and doing something illegal. My guess is that if you were planning on stealing something from your employer you would spend a great deal of time thinking about those cameras.
My father is a retired judge, and I spent a few summers working in his office when he was still a public defender. During that time I came to a shocking conclusion. Criminals become criminals largely because they are too stupid to find a more reliable way to make a living. Making it easier to catch criminals does not cure this stupidity. Most criminals simply aren't rational enough to properly judge the risks involved.
In short, the cameras at your workplace probably don't actually deter criminals either. It simply makes it easier to apprehend the criminals after the fact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the rest of us the idea that cameras make investigations easier (and therefore less expensive), and provide evidence that puts actual criminals in prison can generally be considered a win.
That's only true as long as all the laws are just.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't depend on your community to create just laws then you have much bigger problem than whether or not the police have a record of where you have driven your car.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Insightful)
What community, anywhere, ever in history could one depend upon to create just laws?
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Interesting)
Crime isn't prosecuted with 'deterrence/prevention' in mind. That would leave all the prisons very empty, and reduce law enforcement funding. Punishment for crimes committed is much more profitable. If everybody obeys the law, it only means we don't have enough laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out that these cameras only prevent street crime. Low level poor people crime, that is. These cameras are entirely blind to the much larger crimes happening on Wall Street.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the strategy for the use of the license plate readers ... She said it was hard to tell whether interest in âoeeffective and efficient law enforcementâ was being balanced with the âoevalues of privacy and freedom.â
What possible interest of privacy could you have while on the public street? Hint: when you are out on the public streets everyone can see you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro civil liberties in the context of private spaces. I just don't understand how anything I do on the street -- where I have the full expectation that other people can observe what I'm doing -- merits protections on the basis of privacy. That expectation informs me of the boundary between private and public. A citizen cannot reasonably claim to keep private his activities in public anymore than citizens have the right to publicize the private activities of others.
If anything, I see the blurring of this boundary as being quite destructive to privacy because it erodes the logical distinction between activities that take place inside a private space and ones outside. That is, attempts to extend the privacy of the home outside by making false equivalences are just as likely to erode the protections inside as they are to bolster protections outside.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very pro civil liberties myself. Having the government record everything we do in public is a very good way for the government (or anyone able to hack into the system) to later on decide what you did *yesterday* is now illegal and you should be prosecuted for it.
This is why reasonable suspicion needs to be a part of *any* surveillance law.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that if I were to follow you around with a camera every minute of the day that you were in public spaces, you'd be able to get a restraining order against me. Does it not bother you that the government can do, without a warrant, what an individual cannot?
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously you need to not park near crime scenes...it's not rocket science. Do you really have any business being near crime scenes?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you need to not park near crime scenes...it's not rocket science. Do you really have any business being near crime scenes?
Obviously all 100 people parking near there couldn't have all committed the same crime.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why not just lock them all up to be sure?
I gotta say, I think I see where you're going with it, and I love it.
That's because I'm not a criminal, and I'd never be mistaken for one, because it's obvious how good I am, and I trust the system... oh, and I'm retarded.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not. Being in the area wouldn't be enough evidence to justify trying to prosecute you since the case would be thrown out.
Unless you happen to be the only black or Hispanic person in the area. That's enough to convict in many cities.
Re:Driving patterns (Score:4, Insightful)
Well then, clearly we should use all the info garnered by perverse medical experiments and torture also, seeing as that it's so 'valuable'..
Welcome to the 20th century...on wait...
You do realize, there is almost nothing of the 20th century (post WWII) which didn't directly or indirectly benefit from the Nazi's medical and scientific endeavors... As such, living in the 21st century means you benefited from the horrors of the Nazi's experiments conducted during the 20th century.
Was a statement of hypocrisy actually intended to invalidate your own point? Or perhaps your point went over my head? Was your point something other than what you seem to be implying?
Re: (Score:2)
Alot of the scientific breakthroughs the West made had nothing to do with Nazi research.
Much of the Nazi medical research was pure bunk, yes in some fields they were more advanced than the British and Americans, but in many fields they were less advanced.
The German jet engines were much less reliable then British ones and slightly less reliable than the first American engines for example.
Nuclear power, long range jet aircraft, radar, spread spectrum communications, proximity fuzes, computers, antibiotics, g
Re:That's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when, statistically, terrorists are non-existent.
Re: (Score:2)
Lisa, I want to buy your rock!
Re:That's how it works (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Some say it is a slippery slope, but it has been repeated again and again that something used only for "terrorists" ends up being used to chase down or catch low hanging fruit, such as the potheads smoking out behind a 7-11. Same with laws that were meant for would-be invaders from an enemy country who were looking to cause harm on US soil being used to go after some middle high school kids hanging out at a playground.
Me, being the cynical person I am, was wondering how long it will be before the camera system, originally meant to catch terrorists trying to kill thousands of people at once would end up being used to chase down misdemeanors such as loitering and criminal trespass [1].
[1]: The bar for trespass is really low in some places. Walking across a parking lot without buying at a store in a strip mall can get someone charged with this in some areas of the US.
Re:That's how it works (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be willing to bet if you looked back on when this was set up to begin with, the proponents would have vehemently denied it would be used for anything but what it was "intended for". (catching terrorists) And that testimony was instrumental in getting the green light for it to be set up to begin with.
IMHO, whenever something like this goes on the agenda, when the sales pitch is being made to the officials/voters, that they have to put it in writing that the very minute it gets used beyond those predefined and agreed on bounds, it's IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED.
If nothing else it would prove to make a very entertaining debate when the people swearing it won't go beyond "that" suddenly and most urgently fight to stop that harmless little "public rights safety" from being added to the books. "So tell me again, why is it you're so against that little clause, if you're insisting it'll never come to that???"
Re:look back (Score:2)
See, that's supposed to be what the web is good at - connecting dots to better promote education. (Wasn't that the story we just saw on Internet2?)
However the funny part is the social networking gang is doing a good job of distracting us from actually doing this work.
I agree with you, the loop is starting to close though, initial vehement denials are starting to loop back. I remarked elsewhere this is among the first time *they* (instead of us) are proudly(!) admitting scope-slipperiness. That can't go on f
Re:4th Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'm confused - are the police using their cameras to search your person, house, papers or effects? Or are they seizing them?
Roadway Travel is Public Info (Score:3, Informative)
Citation Needed (Score:2)
Please point me to the SCOTUS ruling that says they can use GPS tracking on private vehicles without warrants. Last I heard, this was still held up at the Federal Appeals level. SCOTUS hasn't even ruled on whether the GPS tracking in your phone can be accessed without a warrant.
There may be no expectation of privacy on public roads, but you aren't always on public roads. Your garage is not public. Your driveway is not public.
Also, while following an individual in public for a single stake-out may not be
Re:Roadway Travel is Public Info (Score:5, Informative)
SCOTUS ruled that use of public roadways is public knowledge and legal without a warrant, including the use of GPS tracking units on your "private" vehicle. Their ruling is that when driving on a public roadway, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy as to your travelling.
Nope, SCOTUS has never ruled on the requirement or lack there of in obtaining a warrant to utilize a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle. More specifically, the circuit courts are split on this topic with the D.C Circuit court in Commonwealth v. Connolly mandating a warrant and the Ninth in USA v. Juan Pineda-Moreno writing carte-blanche to track anyone anywhere.
But perhaps you are confused with USA v. Knotts in that SCOTUS did decided that the monitoring of a pager embed in a barrel of chemicals that the defendant was using to manufacture methanphetamines was A-ok. The DC courts did take this SCOTUS decision into account and came back with a decision that a pager was only good for a day or two max, but the GPS machines could last for months.
Now, searching inside the vehicle, that's a different question. And what if the camera takes a picture through your windows?
Yes, indeed a search of a vehicle is a different topic all together. However, the plain view doctrine would most definitely allow pictures that reveal the contents of your vehicle from a vantage point outside into the court of law.
Re: (Score:2)
They're using public information--your license plate during your travels on public property (roadways)--to determine something. IE, if the car was reported stolen, etc. It's pretty clearly constitutional, even on its face -- and definitely when one looks at the decisions that have already supported these issues.
Whether or not it should be is another issue entirely. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the Founders had no way to properly imagine technology such that you could be automatically, tech
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Egad. The whole point of license plates is to be readily and publicly visible - kind of hard to argue the whole expectation of privacy thing there. Also, the license plate is not yours, it is the state's.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, these cameras are not searching your car. They are searching public streets FOR your car.