Big Brother Will Be Watching You In Florida 700
An anonymous reader submits "The Florida Times Union is running a story about the city of Manalapan putting up cameras and an automatic optical recognition system to check the license plates of every car to drive through town. As usual the article spins the system as something positive to battle crime. Just one step close to Eric Arthur Blair's vision of 1984."
beat the system (Score:5, Informative)
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Informative)
Re:beat the system (Score:4, Funny)
Too Funny!
Re:beat the system (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't make it a good idea.
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, the presumption of innocence and the freedom from unwarranted search.
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Insightful)
Police power is ALWAYS abused. Always. That's why we need to be very careful when we extend that power.
Re:beat the system (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is fair to say that, given sufficient time, someone will abuse those extended powers. Given a little more time, people will come to accept those abuses as standard operating procedure
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and lemme guess, the only people who have anything to worry about are those who have something to hide, right?
Sounds Like Another Libertarian Fanatic (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, do you think cops chasing criminals is just a cute little game?
Re:beat the system (Score:3, Informative)
On a different note, the other interesting numberplate blocking system I read about used a fast LCD display which very rapidly flashes between covering the left half and right half of the numberplate. To the naked eye, invisible. But to a camera, they only get half the number. If you ask me, with half the number and the model and colour of the car, th
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, they ARE in there. I microwaved a stack of license plates and my microwave just about exploded. Obviously the goverment trying to hide the evidence.
Re:beat the system (Score:3, Insightful)
you think they'd need flash even, or that flash would be practical for a bigbrother type of a continuous system? and you do realise that the whole point of the register plate is to IDENTIFY YOUR CAR and this thing says it messes with that functionality(and doesn't really take any responsibility on wether your car is road legal with plates with this shit on them).
though, as a snakeoil/useless product it's pretty well designed: s
Re:beat the system (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:beat the system (Score:4, Informative)
To be prosecuted intent is required, not success.
Re:beat the system (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note I saw the company who does the image recognition software at CeBIT - they guy was showing it off and it's quite impressive (from a technical view)
Re:beat the system (Score:3, Interesting)
Writhe in pain. That's what I usually do.
More seriously, you hope someone else witnessed the whole thing; you shouldn't be craning your neck to see who hit you.
Even more seriously, I was hit-and-run from behind in my van on the freeway a few years back. I saw him coming and was able to prepare and maintain control. (I was going 55; he must've been going 80 or more.) He kept control, passed me and took off. I had the presence of mind to write down the plate nu
Re:beat the system (Score:4, Insightful)
If anyone on this thread had half a clue, they'd realize that those things, except the optical one, block by using the FLASH by reflection of light. Clearly, every car can't be recongnized by flash photography, image processing and character recognition is a much more logical choice for this. The spray will not work and I'm sure the lens is blatantly illegal.
And here's an experiment you can do at home!
How the spray works:
Go to a mirror with a digital camera in a dark room. Be sure the flash is on. Stand way too close to the mirror. Take a picture. Came out really bright and crappy, didn't it? Thats exactly what happens with the license plates. They reflect the light if a certain amount of it is transmitted and hits the plate covered with the spray. One of them uses refractive optics to blur the image, but it doesn't work the same way as the spray. To demonstrate how it works, bend the mirror *Warning: do not try this with the average mirror*. Can't see yourself in the picture at all now, eh?
Re:beat the system (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I did that. This [anvari.org] is the picture I got. Seems to work fine to me - what's your issue?
It's trivial to beat the system - Cloning (Score:5, Insightful)
We have what can only be described as comprehensive coverage by CCTV and speed cameras here, including automatic numberplate recognition cameras for the congestion charging zone in London.
If you want to get round the cameras, simply copy down the numberplate of a car of similar make, model and colour, have a plate made and put it on yours. Simple.
Thousands of people in the UK are now automatically being issued invalid speeding tickets (and having their licenses removed) from cloned cars and are being charged for driving in London when they were never there. And it's up to you to prove your innocence because they have photos of "your" vehicle.
Static, automatic camera systems are useless, it needs police on the ground manually checking license plates and even that only catches a miniscule fraction of them.
Re:I been wondering about these (Score:5, Funny)
Newscaster: "And in other news, Manalapan local commerce has apparently dried up due to a sudden and prolonged lack of incoming traffic. Commuters are seemingly going out of their way to avoid the town completely, and speculation is rampant that Manalapan is about to become a ghost town. Ongoing negotiations with Wal-mart developers have been stalled for the past 3 days, and rumors of a mass exodus due to newly-proposed tax increases are running wild..."
Eric Arthur who? (Score:5, Informative)
I was about to ask, until I discovered that George Orwell is a pen-name.
Re:Eric Arthur who? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Eric Arthur who? (Score:3)
I didn't know George Orwell was a pen name. Now I do, and know his real name. I had to look it up (although I figured as much as soon as I saw '1984'). I'm glad I learned that.
Why is it that we think ignorance is some God-given right and get mad when anyone disspells it. This is like the public gets mad when a newspaper users a multi-syllable word. Reminds me of growing up in the De
Re:Eric Arthur who? (Score:5, Interesting)
The point here is that the extra information wasn't really relevant, and merely appeared to be inserted to boost the submitter's ego. It becomes more obvious if you rephrase it:
"Just one step close to George Orwell's vision of 1984. Oh, and George Orwell was actually a pen name for Eric Arthur Blair."
His real name DOESN'T MATTER here. It would matter if you were talking about his life rather than his books, but since the only reason for mentioning Orwell was the (tediously obvious) Nineteen Eighty Four reference, it was completely extraneous. I'd prefer less pretentious crap and more careful typing (he writes "close" for "closer").
I eagerly await the next YRO story -- I'm hoping for something like:
"Is this just one step closer to a Jughashvilian state? Oh yeah, Jughashvili was Stalin's real name, by the way. I'm pretty fucking smart, me."
Re:Eric Arthur who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did saying "Eric Blair's 1984" have ONE IOTA of PURPOSE that made it perferable to "George Orwell's 1984?" No. Because the submitter is a twat.
If I wrote this post in German, would that make for a clearer discussion, or would it make me look like a pedantic jerk? The latter. Like the poster.
PS - The same goes for people who quote Cicero in Latin in their sigs.
Re:Eric Arthur who? (Score:5, Funny)
I agree with your ipse dixit despite your ad hominem, although prima facie evidence has indicated ad infinitum (as you noted a priori) that Slashdotters are cannot post sans such phrases a fortiori, being that said phrases are the de facto lingua franca of condescending morons et cetera and it is easier to insert such phrases than to begin with tabula rasa.
Handy list of Latin phrases said morons use [cuny.edu]. Now you, too, can sound like a condescendant!
Re:Eric Arthur who? (Score:3, Insightful)
ONE good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
-PM
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no problem with the act of people's number plates being scanned in Florida (its not even a place I am going to visit in the next few years.)
The only problem here is the fact that as technology lets people do this, it will happen more and more. The 3 month rule could change next week.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ONE good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory if we were to require all U.S. citizens to carry GPS chips in their heads at all time, kidnapping crimes would plummet. On the other hand, you'd have people pointing out that the government could use this to monitor and invade our privacy.
Same thing with this report. In theory the government could seriously crack down on reckless driving (at least running red lights) with a few software adjustments. That way they could just se
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I write software that does similar things to this, except way more indepth than just a license plate scan.
You know what hapens when you do a lookup on a plate that has no crime associated with it? Nothing! No one is reading your biography or analyzing your porno rentals just because you drove through their town. The only info that will pop up is if the Vehicle is actually the subject of an alert. These alerts are generated one of two ways. #1 The vehicle was witnessed at a crime scene, or #2 the owner called 911 and reported the vehicle missing. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who commits a crime just voluntarily exposed themselves to public inquiry. And if it was your car that was stolen, I'm sure you'd be quite happy that the plates were being scanned. The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.
Just last week, our software allowed all the police officers in Utah to have access to the citations history of the highway patrol...including warnings given out. The very next day after we activated it, a kid got pulled over doing 94 in a 65 and gave the patrollman the usual BS story of "honest officer, I've never been pulled over...I was just trying to pass someone." Turns out he had been warned twice in the past month for 76 in a 65 and 82 in a 65. Tell me how he didn't deserve the reckless driving citation they gave him after seeing his apparent complete disregard for speeding AND BEING WARNED TWICE about it.
1984 My A$$! God forbid the folks who risk their lives to provide for the public safety actually have some decent tools to help them out.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Informative)
So the real question is, what will the computer (and the human reviewer) actually be shown when they run the query on my license plate? If the computer only shows, "No outstanding warrants," then I'm fine with that.
Something tells me, however, they'll be shown a lot more.
Schwab
In the case of an automated system (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like a packet sniffer. We have one at work to look for net problems. Now nothing is more useless than turning it on and just logging everything that goes in or out of the building. It's just a bunch of random shit, almost all of which is perfectly normal. We'd need 1000x our staff to stand any chance at sorting through it all. So the sniffer has rules for things it ought to look for (like Phatbot scanning). If that happens, we get an alert on it.
I'm not seeing any real problem here. A right to privacy isn't a right to ba anonymous. The government, or anyone else for that matter, is welcome to watch and identify you in public. Their right ends at your door, however. That is what the right to privacy entails, that you can't be monitored in your home. It does not mean that you can always be totally anonymous when in public.
Re:In the case of an automated system (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the Supreme Court, there can be no such thing as truly free speech without the ability to be anonymous. But I suppose you know better than they do, being the morally superior sort that you are.
That is what the right to privacy entails, that you can't be monitored in your home.
Nor can you be monitored in public without sufficient cause or immediate, reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing. Because of that free speech thingie and the need for
Re:ONE good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you do.
The problems with this sort of thing are uncannily similar to the problems with things like ... oh say ... nuclear energy. Though it may indeed be capable of serving its masters for the benefit of all, it also has an aspect that will allow it to serve other masters, not all of whom have the best interestes of you and me in mind. History tells us that we can count upon individuals and instrumentalities to use this kind of thing for the very w
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's where it starts. The thing is, we have (at the moment) a right to privacy. While this particular story isn't all that big a deal, we continually accept more and more invasions on privacy.
Life inherently contains risk. You can't protect everyone all of the time, without making life completely miserable. So while a particular technology may have some benefits, it also may destroy any enjoyment of life.
Think about health nuts (vegans, etc). They refuse to eat meats, etc, or perhaps they work out 4 hours a day. Whatever it is, they may prolong their life by some amount (a few years perhaps) but when your whole life revolves around extending it, what good is it?
I'm willing to take a risk that someone might get away with a crime here and there, in exchange for not having my every move monitored by camera, GPS, credit cards, or whatever. And if I get killed as a result -- then I guess my number came up. At least I had fun while I could.
Just my two cents.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Not on a public street, you don't.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. For instance, I can take a picture of you on a public street and keep it as long as I want.
But it's a little different when the government is doing it. Sure, this kind of surveillance is legal. But should it be? That is the question, and it is a good question. I for one am against it, but I also see it as inevitable. "The only privacy you have anymore is the inside of your own head, and maybe that's enough." -- "Enemy of the State".
You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary. This is the principle of checks and balances.
The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Precisely. If I had a nickel for everyone who conflates the issue of how the law is with how the law should be, I'd be Bill Gates-rich ;)
You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary.
But that's not a blanket protection against all forms of surveillance - that right isn't absolute. Generally, the judiciary only comes into play when the police want to go somewhere where you have some reasonable expectation that what you're doing is not something that the public at large is privy to - your house, your place of business, your telephone, and so forth. The police don't need a warrant from a judge to simply follow you around all day and take notes on where you go as you're out and about on your daily business. Should they? I'm not so sure - walking through the mall, your presence is obvious to anyone who cares to look, but essentially we'd be asking the police to ignore that which is directly in front of their faces.
The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.
Perhaps. But I'm not so sure they would have endorsed a blanket right to what we might call "public anonymity", where one is not, say, speaking or writing anonymously - that I think they would have understood, with the probable exception of John Adams ;) - but rather having anonymity retrofitted on to your actual physical presence. I don't think the concept of "disappearing in the crowd" had quite as much meaning for them then as it does for us now - the crowd was a lot smaller back then, and it was just harder to be anonymous in public. Nowadays, we enclose ourselves in our metal boxes as we travel, and like to think that the feeling of insularity that this engenders is something we're somehow entitled to. But historically speaking, that insularity never really existed as it does now - if you wanted to travel from New York to Boston in 1789, you were most likely either walking or riding a horse, but either way, your face was out there for the world to see as you did it. And even if you'd never been to Boston before, I don't think the Founders would have signed on to the notion that nobody in Boston, including the local authorities, should have the ability to find out more about you.
It may have been slower and less formal than it is now, but I have trouble believing that they would have had serious objections to the Boston authorities writing a letter to the New York authorities, one that says that a shifty, suspicious looking fellow who calls himself "freejung" and says he's from New York just showed up in town, and do you know anything about him. And that is, in essence, a background check, the nature of which is not so far removed from what we do now - the only real difference is that such inquiries are both faster and more accurate now than they were in the past, and something makes me doubt that the Founders would see speed and accuracy as inherently bad things.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
"Give"? If it's that important to you, surely you're prepared to pay for it ;)
Do you really think freedom of travel doesn't exist because the roads are public?
"Freedom to travel" is not the same as "right to privacy" - not even close. Just because you're not anonymous on the public roads, that doesn't mean you're not free to travel them.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very dangerous attitude to have. It's this kind of thinking by the masses that can allow growth and exploitation of governmental powers.
It's also flat-out wrong, in the same way that it'd be wrong to say "any innocent person will be acquitted in court, so the only people who have anything to fear from a guilty-until-proven-innocent legal system are those who are guilty".
Moreover, it's only one more step to add long-term archival and tracking to this kind of system. You may retort, "But why would they do that? They just ignore you if you're not on a watch list." To answer that question preemptively, they would do that so that, should you later be added to a watch list, they can also pull up records of where you've been and when you were there.
Don't think that, just because it's not being exploited now, it never will be. A similar thing happened in the early 1930's, when a court decided that short-barreled guns were an exception to the second amendment. Politicians were quick to pass the Gun Control Act in 1934, which severely restricts the sale and ownership of short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns and certain other weapons. Now, they keep a list (at the Federal level) of everyone who owns any of these things.
To answer to questions a lot of people are sure to ask:
1. Yes, short-barreled shotguns, of the 'trench gun' variety, were the first banned weapons; not machine guns.
2. The second amendment exists to ensure that the government fears the people ('fear' in the same sense as I am a God-fearing Christian - I respect his wishes), and therefore, machine guns are among the guns that it was intended to protect my ownership of, because a government with machine guns versus a citizen without will not be fearful of that citizen.
3. What I've just said in no way means that we should be able to own nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction - they are useless in fighting tyranny (they can only be used indiscriminately against an area target, which isn't helpful in a rebellion).
Re:ONE good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Check back when they have the efficient means to do that...
If something can be done easily for the sake of security but is against privacy or ethics, it's only a matter of time before implementation.
Re:ONE good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying and doing are two different things entirely.
If you have ever been to college and taken a psychology class, you may be aware of psychology experiments that you can participate in (usually for a small bribe or extra credit).
I had a psychology professor talk about privacy, and she mentioned that she (and others) never got around to destroying data from old psych experiments (contrary to what they said when you signed up to do the experiment). Including personally identifying information.
I mention this as an example of several problems. First, as well meaning as this seams to be, the fact is once your name makes it into a computer somewhere, chances are excellent that it will stay there. If not there, then on some backup tapes somewhere. Or on the hardrive when they send the old computer to the thrift store. Or when they swap out the old hard drive and sell it on ebay.
I have old hard drives lying around that I got at the thrift in the eighties. I wonder what is on them? I bet I could give some people heart attacks.
I think more people are becoming aware of this, but probably not enough.
What is also troublesome is the connection of our names and the social security number in databases. They may use that here as many driver license divisions require one to drive.
Then, what database cross pollination [slashdot.org] occurs?
Normally, this might be seen as a smart idea. But I question its worth versus real cost.
What they should do ... (Score:4, Funny)
What do you mean councilman Jones never shows up for work on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays? Let's have a talk with him
could be useful
Re:ONE good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. Why should they do that when the Office of Fatherland Security can store it for them much more efficiently including redundant backups?
Seriously though, one of the ways that the fourth amendment is being attacked is by convincing the public that the word "reasonable" means something to the effect of "not objectionable to most people" (as in 'Come on into Crazy Eddies, I've got the most reasonable prices around!') Then telling the public we have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and continually reducing that expectation bit by bit over the years.
But the Founders wrote the Constitution using legal definitions not colloquialisms. A reading of the amendment specifically mentions oaths, affirmation, and specificity of any search to be performed. The concept of reasonableness as it is used in the Constitution is more along the lines of "able to be reasoned (deduced) from actual evidence or charges made by accountable persons". If we don't object to this hijacking of the original intent of the document then we are surrendering our freedom without a fight. Stand up and be counted. Study the 4th amendment then write your congressman and let him know that you understand what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it and you want him to uphold our highest law as it was written.
These words are simple to understand. They were written by eloquent men, who didn't have cell phones, instant messaging, or voicemail. They wrote letters to communicate. They were good at writing what they meant. We shouldn't let ourselves be confused by replacing exacting legal definitions with informal, modern usages.Re:ONE good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
When systems like this are intentionally exposed to public scrutiny, there will always be a mollifying language included in it. Their goal is to make the average person feel not certain enough that they're threatened to get off their couch and take action.
Once the spooks have gotten the consent they need from politicians, the political reality is that th
Easily Remedied ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easily Remedied ... (Score:2)
Reminds me... (Score:5, Funny)
Got that beat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reminds me... (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like in Singapore? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's bad, but nothing shocking.
Re:You mean like in Singapore? (Score:2)
We have something similar here. Its not installed in the cars, but you stick it to your windshield and when you go through a toll it automatically deducts the toll from either a pre-paid credit or from your credit card.
I guess you can say that's really big brother, one company throughout a major metropolitan area tracking what roads you drive, when you do it, and how fast you get through the tolls. They may even have cameras up monitoring the cars that go through, I've never noticed. No one here complai
covers? (Score:4, Interesting)
One better... (Score:4, Informative)
Allready happens in UK (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Allready happens in UK (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, what you're suggesting seems so unlikely that I'm inclined to call "bullshit".
Either way, my original post stands: the government doesn't have a network of cameras tracking the individual. If they did, crime would be non-existant: the fact that it isn't only further proves my point. In fact, the majority of CCTV cameras that you'll come across in the UK are privately operated, in stores, car parks, on public transport systems, etc. And I can tell you from experience that these aren't networked in any meaningful way.
and this for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers obviously are less discriminatory and hopefully more reliable than a human, if the software is done right. However, the issue is privacy, so I digress. But, computer vs. policeman aside, what difference does it make if a police officer was stationed looking for people?
If a camera was focused on private property (like on a house), then that would certainly be an invasion of privacy (that kind of survellience is hopefully illegal), or the government had "special" means that cannot be easily monitored such as those security blimps then I would agree it's a loss of privacy.
I'm certainly for as little government as possible. But in this case is privacy really being lost? The same thing can be done with humans, afterall, and no one complains about loss of privacy by seeing a police officer legally on public land looking for criminals.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another way of explaining it is you go from a person who has limited ability to observe things and so in practice has to have some reason other than the fact that you drove by to look up your license plate number and compare it to things to a device that will look up every single license plate that drives by. This is a bad thing.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
I once had my door kicked in and a dozen or so police point their guns at me. Why? Because a drug dealer lived in my apartment six months before I moved in.
A murder is commited and one of these cameras record the license plate.
So, let's say you buy a used car. A couple of months go by, and now the police come in to arrest you for murder. When they break in your door, they don't like the way you didn't fall flat on your face fas
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
At 2 AM. With the house surrounded, and police ready to sneak into the house. Fortunately, something else had woken her up, and while she was walking down the hall she heard the cops or saw the flashlights.
Took an hour to explain to the police that the dealer no longer lived there, moved around the corner, they left but didn't entirely believe my co-worker or her husband that they weren't the subjects of the search.
Your MA
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
What this effectively means is that I either give up privacy, or the right to travel freely. Before, with the human watching things, I could always choose to drive at nighttime, or in a convoy, and assume that he'd quickly forget I was there.
The problem with data collection is that computer memory never forgets, and it is frighteningly easy to cross-reference with other data. *That* is the real problem. If it would only compare the license plate to a list of stolen cars, and then discard the data, no problem.
But keeping data around allows people to get insights into private lifes that you don't want to share.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you automate it, it gets cheap enough that you can afford to have the equivalent of a cop following you all the time and watching everything you do. When the cops do that it's usually
called harassment, even when it's only done in public.
It's similar to the provacy implications of data-mining. When you had to go to the l
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Automated systems that try to analyze driving patterns and find "suspicious behavior". People then get watched, searched, harassed, etc because some data mining program put out by PerpAnalysis thinks they're a criminal.
Automated traces on political groups. Find the license plates of some political group the government doesn't like and make
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Blocking the cameras (Score:2)
Re:Blocking the cameras (Score:5, Informative)
One solution is to take advantage of the limited exposure range of the camera by illuminating your license plate with lots and lots of infrared light - it'll look normal to people, but not the camera. Hopefully you can make it appear to be just a white blob. Actually, you don't even need to do the whole plate, just a letter or two.
Small potatoes (Score:2, Funny)
From Florida (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason that I'm really worried is that I like to drive without my pants on sometimes.
please adjust your tin-foil beanie (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just one step close to Eric Arthur Blair's vision of 1984"
Sir, CCTV being used to monitor traffic is nothing new and being a slashdot reader muchless, lucky article submitter, I'd advise you to check the fastenings of your cranial mindwave protection device.
All who got the memo know quite well that 1984 conditions will have arrived in full when the TiVo records you.
Good day.
Uhm... (Score:2, Insightful)
ie, "Courts have ruled that in a public area, you have no expectation of privacy,"
System scans license plate --> finds license plate is for a stolen car --> police notified of location in real time.
How is that a bad thing, again?
Systematic *recording* of data... (Score:3, Insightful)
Say wah? (Score:2)
How the hell am I going to end up in Florida? Sure, there are a lot of transcendent individuals out here in California, but I never smoke the stuff.
I guess I was first to RTFA (Score:2)
So, it's basically a bunch of paranoid rich assholes using techno
Nothing to fear (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately, in Florida, Big Brother is 87, confined to a Rascal scooter, and has very poor eyesight.
Let them live the way they want to live (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them be.
The part that should scare you... (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly what does it take to be on the 'special monitoring' list? There are already protections about in what ways you can be harassed by following and surveillance, but they aren't mentioned by this article. My pessimism suspects that they aren't considered by the system.
This automated system is akin to having a police officer in each location with a camera, whose sole responsibility is to record license plates. How would you feel about living in that society?
Even if it takes a warrant to be put on this 'lookout' list, do you really trust giving up the rest of this data for the "three months" they'll allegedly have it? Who is allowed to access it while it's there? What kind of accesses are allowed? Where is the line between privacy and security? To take it a step further, how would you feel about having your every move within the whole town recorded?
I'd say that this system has too much potential for abuse.
-Zipwow
First of all.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The police in Manalapan are already looking at what color the people are who are driving, but it's difficult to tell if brown people are working there, instead of (naturally) robbing houses. As far as I'm concerned, the residents of Manalapan are a bunch of well-back rich bastards with nothing better to do than whine and complain. This is just another in a long line of questionable governmental actions/decisions coming out of Manalapan.
As far as my credibility, I've lived most of my life in Jupiter, FL (about 20 miles north).
For those who don't know, a "well-back" is a derogotory term for a transplanted New Yorker/New Jerseyite.
For instance --
Well, back in New Jersey, we got good deli...
One Little Township... (Score:3, Funny)
... installs some cameras and suddenly it's the Feds giving you a "rat hat".
Put down the bongs, people.
Apparently you don't live in Florida (Score:3, Informative)
They have a HUGE problem with people running lights here. I mean, HUGE. It's not a one or two car going through lights...it's like FIVE going through the lights. It's not like it's at one intersection either. Happens all the time.
Maybe this will finally cut down on that from happening, and the accidents it's been causing.
A Brave New 1984 (Score:3, Informative)
Quantitative difference in expectations of privacy (Score:5, Informative)
A camera tapes you. If one tape-reviewer doesn't know you, he can ask until he finds someone who does. The tape can be matched with other tapes to see where you were and where you're going. The tape will be stored and reviewed by ever better automatic recognition tech, and those results stored in ever larger and cheaper databases.
I think this is a quantitative change in the "expectation of privacy" one has in public.
We are getting very close to "P-day" (coined by Brad Templeton [4brad.com]): the last day of privacy, because from then on all our actions will be tracked retroactively if not currently. Or, as he puts it [politechbot.com]: "So you're already being watched. The computer that is watching you just hasn't been born quite yet."
Two good essays on why this type of surveillance hurts society and violates our rights:
"[Talking about Canada...] If these measures are allowed to go forward and the privacy-invasive principles they represent are accepted [then before long] our movements through the public streets will be relentlessly observed through proliferating police video surveillance cameras. Eventually, these cameras will likely be linked to biometric face-recognition technologies ... [indentifying] us by name and address as we go about our law-abiding business in the streets... I am well aware that these scenarios are likely to sound, to most people, like alarmist exaggeration. Certainly, the society I am describing bears no relation to the Canada we know. But anyone who is inclined to dismiss the risks out of hand should pause first to consider that the privacy-invasive measures already being implemented or developed right now would have been considered unthinkable in our country just a short year ago."
The place to stop unjustified intrusions on a fundamental human right such as privacy is right at the outset, at the very first attempt to enter where the state has no business treading. Otherwise, the terrain will have been conceded, and the battle lost...
Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do...
If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl...Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
When we feel watched, we feel less free. We censor ourselve
"the foundation of freedom, justice and peace" (Score:3, Informative)
Er, what about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]? "Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy..."
Rights are given to you by the governing body
Not according to the Declaration of Independence [ushistory.org]. "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." It says that governments only exist "to secure these rights," not to bestow them, implying that the rights themselves exist outsi
"Professional Courtesy" (Score:4, Interesting)
April 04, 2004
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK (FOR THEMSELVES) [newsday.com]:
It's bad enough that they do this, but it's even worse that they brag about it. But wait, it gets worse:
So much for political oversight. So a doctor en route to an emergency is the same as a cop who's just driving too fast? Sheesh. Are these people for real?
UPDATE: Rand Simberg [transterrestrial.com] observes:
Indeed.
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at April 04, 2004 04:27 PM
Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
We've come to falsely expect privacy because our world has grown so large. In older days, you would be recognized if you walked into town - without any biometric ID or other technology but common knowledge.
Seems a violation (Score:5, Insightful)
When they started doing random seatbelt and sobriety tests, they skirted the issue by making it "random", i.e. every 10th car or something, instead of based on "perception" by the officers. Since they were not checking everyone, it wasn't guilt until proven innocent, and since it was random, it wasn't targetting any specific group based on outside appearances.
Of course, in our post-9-11 loss of sensibility, I doubt anyone will seriously challenge this.
Benjamin Franklin has a couple of appropriate quotes:
All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.
And most appropriate of all:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Re:Seems a violation (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes, the security you get gives you liberty. The best comparison to Manalapan is a little country in Europe called Monaco. Like, Manalapan, Monaco is mostly populated by those of exceptional wealth. Those that live there, generally describe it as a police state, and that's why they live there.
My grandmother had her farm house broken into a few years back. They robbed her of just about ev
Funny Urban Legend (Score:3, Funny)
He managed to get into the car with his ass exposed above the steering wheel and drive through the intersection with the license plate covered up. How he managed to steer the car is beyond me.
Can anyone confirm if this story is true or bogus?
It is merely a small step among many (Score:5, Insightful)
Leading to a police state in what used to be the USA. The "Patriot" Act and similar nonsense merely nibbles away at a few rights. Just a minor annoyance or inconvenience, right? Then there are "minor" annoyances like the Prez being able to willy-nilly label someone an "enemy combatant" whether you were actually picked up on some field of battle somewhere and tossed in a cell indefinitely with no recourse. No contact with family, lawyers, judges, newspapers, nothing. Oh yeah, and it is only during "wartime". A "war" defined such that it NEVER ends (the "War on Terror"). Then there are minor plantings of surveillance cameras here and there as in the story. Nothing big. Just watching for "evil doers" with warrants out on them...then it is for minor traffic/parking infractions...then it is for odd or "suspicious" behavior. In any case, just a minor adjustment in each case. Just baby steps. Problem is, eventually we get backed into a deep, deep hole and think, "How the HELL did we get here?"
In psychology, it is termed "successive approximation". You can't get someone to outright do some thing or agree to something so you merely walk them towards the desired end by having them take innocuous, minor "baby steps" toward the desired goal. The person has no real problem taking these "minor" steps. On their own they are nothing. In the end, you have them doing something or going along with something that they NEVER would have agreed to if you'd put it to them outright.
Baby steps. Thousands of baby steps can carry us a long distance in a direction we do NOT want to go.
Are you fit to pass through Manalapan, pilgrim? (Score:3, Insightful)
The presumption in Manalapan is that everyone passing through the rare ethers of this wealthy preserve is a criminal. That is why it is outfitting its police with the technology of presumptive guilt: until you come up clear on the scope, you're just another creep to Manalapan's finest.
This is the M.O. of the Stasi or KGB. That it's happening in America in 2004 isn't terribly surprising, even if it's depressing. Fattened on freedom they imagine will last forever, Americans in recent years have become absurdly lax about their rights--not to mention stupidly ignorant of how they were obtained. We scarcely had any significant applications of privacy in our case law until the major 20th century expansion of civil liberties by the courts in the 1950s and 1960s. Prior to this era, the cops did damn well what they pleased. It's no secret that powerfule forces want to turn back the clock, or that you can turn on talk radio and hear some fool damning "activist judges" for elaborating the Bill of Rights.
Since the 1980s, Americans have learned to do as we are told. We have been trained to pee in a cup as a condition of employment. We have made nary a noise as our health records have been divulged to corporations. We have meekly submitted to increasing searches of our persons and cars (and, in a hideous irony, have even been sold back these humiliations on TV in shows like "COPS"). We have sheepishly allowed the weed of the Patriot Act to take root and spread. And we have even eagerly, in the thousands, volunteered to help John Ashcroft spy on our neighbors. Poll after poll in the past twenty years has shown a majority willing to give up its rights for the latest crusade, whether the "war on drugs" or lately, against terrorism. But what does it profit a nation to win these "wars" when its society ends up resembling the miserable failures of totalitarianism?
As demonstrated by its abusive new surveillance, Manalapan holds passersby in rich contempt. Maybe they're right.
So passe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, cameras dotted around the place capture the registration number of the car and stored in a database. You can then pay at petrol stations, shops, by SMS using a system which is linked back to the database.
Bush? Er, no ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do so many Slashdotters think that Bush and his minions would be the ones to abuse this type of system?
Ever think it might be the crowd who wants the "village" to raise your child?
Re:Cue "That town can kiss my turist $ goodbye" po (Score:5, Funny)
For a slashdotter, that means not buying anything from an ebay seller who lives there.
Re:Calm down... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not what they're doing right now, but what they CAN do. This is just one step towards that direction.
Re:Calm down... (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem 1: ABUSE. Every example wherein more power has been given to the "authorities" has led to abuse, either personal (as in Bill Clinton's use of FBI files) or institutional (the FBI keeping many of those files to begin with). Certainly, giving up some power is necessary and good; this is the basis of democratic theory for everone from Locke to Mill. But every new power taken by the authorities must be met with a benefit-cost analysis of the risks involved versus the potential rewards. I think we will mostly agree that letting the state enforce rules about who may drive is generally a good thing; it means that you have to show competence in driving before being set loose to potentially hurt innocent people. I believe (tho' many
Problem 2: SLIPPERY SLOPE. This is somewhat overused as a cliche, but it's a valid point. Once we are desensitized to one thing, it becomes that much easier for the next thing to happen. The Third Reich (Godwin's law does not apply; I am not comparing any
The adage that "if you're not doing bad, you have nothing to fear" only works if 1) there is never any abuse of police power, and 2) the criminals all obey the rules.
Unfortunately, these two conditions are never possible.
Re:Calm down... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting that you mention dehumanization. One of the things to remember is that today we live in far larger cities than the Germans of then did, and we know fewer of the people we interact with. People around us are perceived as anonymous actors.
The other thing to remember is that people dislike one class of person "getting away with" something they can't, or just breaking the law in general.
As you said, it's easier to pass laws and violate the rights of people you've dehumanized, so consider: whom a
Re:London (Score:3, Interesting)
London has a congestion charging system that requires drivers travelling into a centrally-located zone. The cameras are located at the zone boundary and track only the registration numbers (licence plates) of those vehicles that enter the zone between 7.00am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. This is done only to record which vehicles need to pay the charge on any given day; nothing more, nothing less.
All data, except in the case of vehicles that do not pay the charg