The US Government Is Using Road Signs Showing Drivers How Fast They're Going To Capture License Plate Data (qz.com) 218
Zorro shares a report from Quartz: According to recently released U.S. federal contracting data, the Drug Enforcement Administration will be expanding the footprint of its nationwide surveillance network with the purchase of "multiple" trailer-mounted speed displays "to be retrofitted as mobile LPR [License Plate Reader] platforms." The DEA is buying them from RU2 Systems Inc., a private Mesa, Arizona company. How much it's spending on the signs has been redacted. Two other, apparently related contracts, show that the DEA has hired a small machine shop in California, and another in Virginia, to conceal the readers within the signs. An RU2 representative said the company providing the LPR devices themselves is a Canadian firm called Genetec.
And more! (Score:3)
Re:And more! (Score:5, Funny)
They are also collecting photos of me making an obscene gesture at every one of these signs I pass.
Around here most people try and get the high score when passing one of those electronic speed signs.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I grew up the common story was to remove your license plate and pants, then rip by speeding cameras on your motorcycle.
I can only assume the police found it amusing to get pictures of the great white streak. Not sure if tickets were ever actually given.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here most people try and get the high score when passing one of those electronic speed signs.
How are the shots counted? By caliber? Closest to the center? Tightest group?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy if our traffic "engineers" would get off of their asses and sync any of our lights. We've got some of the worst traffic (DC suburbs) in the nation, and it's rare to make it through consecutive lights anywhere around here.
Re: (Score:2)
You nailed it, but I'd add that our Metro system also sucks balls. They're finally expanding it to areas that should have been completed forty years ago.
Out west (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect they will have issues with bullet holes in the cameras in the western states.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they will have issues with bullet holes in the cameras in the western states.
I remember in college a friend of mine and I used to like going on road trips just randomly taking back roads anywhere. One night we ended up all the way over in Alabama (from SC) taking only back roads all the way there. We had a huge laugh at the "Welcome to Alabama" sign- it was right out of a stereotype- riddled with bullet holes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If them cowboys is smart, they'll be cowards and shoot 'em in tha backside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outside their responsibility? (Score:3)
How the hell is it the DEA's responsibility to monitor driving speeds? If someone's driving 2 miles per hour over the posted limit do they take this as evidence the driver is hopped up on methamphetamines and they have the right to pull them over? Or if they're driving 3 miles per hour UNDER the posted limit, they claim the driver is stoned and shoot the tires out?
They do not care how fast (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of these things is not to measure speed, itâ(TM)s to disguise tracking cameras as something else you normally encounter on a road and do not think of recording anything. They are trying to get a sense of where people are using cars that may be evading known traffic cameras.
Re:They do not care how fast (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. Unfortunately, governments use these tools not for safety, as they claim--especially in the instances of speed/red light/LPRs, but for revenue generation. They send automated civil fines for speed/light violations (potentially taken entirely out of context with no recourse) or to fine owners for any number of violations related to license plates.
We have to decide what levels we're willing to accept as intrusion. Papers please are not acceptable to me nor are these civil, out of context, fines. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine.
All modern governments are built on machines that generate revenue.. That is the only alternative to a forced draft of materials and labor. A strong federal government with independent sources of revenue was forged in the US because a loose confederation of states couldn't or wouldn't contribute enough money to keep the country afloat or do anything worthwhile like building a national system of roads and canals.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been driving for 18 years, and my only ticket was properly issued by a human. Are law abiding citizens actually getting these automated fines with any frequency? It would be nice to see evidence that there's an actual serious problem before discussing what to do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/... [orangecountyfl.net]
This is the light nearest me ticketed 2200 individuals (reducing average light-running by 200), while increasing the crash rate by 30%.
The average ticketer machine issued 1300 tickets, at $158 each, generating $205K per machine. 10 machines were installed in the first phase, generating $2M in additional revenue (ostensibly from lawbreakers).
Note, however, that the cameras, on the whole, decreased instances of crashes *and* instances of light-running while generating thi
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, the fines should be proportional to income in order to make them a true deterrent against reckless driving by wealthy people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd lose that case in court. Equal protection and all.
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. Unfortunately, governments use these tools not for safety, as they claim--especially in the instances of speed/red light/LPRs, but for revenue generation. They send automated civil fines for speed/light violations (potentially taken entirely out of context with no recourse)
I agree they're not supposed to be revenue generation machines. However, I disagree on the red light cameras. They most certainly are a safety issue, and a way to confirm the lights meet the specifications for the speed limits on the road. Note that most states have a timing requirement on lights, and usually that includes the ability of an 80 ton truck to safely stop once the light changes. So by no means should a red light camera ever catch a car running a red light other than when someone does it intenti
Re: (Score:2)
I'm too lazy to look it up, but here in VA, red light cameras were shutdown. There was no standard for setting the duration of yellow lights, and I've seen the same in many other states. I'm not a fan of autonomous enforcement, but we do need to do something about the frequency of folks running them. However, to be fair, standardization should be required.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could try not speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could try not speeding.
Sorry, life's too short for me to pay attention to arbitrarily choses rules. I speed every day, and the time I save doing so is well worth whatever tickets I've received over the ~45 years of driving.
Now, if you'd like to debate the safety aspect, I'd be happy to. I only speed up to what I consider safe for conditions (weather, traffic, the vehicle's capabilities, etc.). I don't endanger others by tailgating, or weaving. I use my signals. And I'm experienced at high speed driving, including track and a
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.winonadailynews.co... [winonadailynews.com]
Depends on local jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
B. Speeding is dangerous and fucking stupid.
This is by no means a true assertion. There are plenty of roads where the speed limits are artificially low for no known reason, other than perhaps revenue generation.
Re: (Score:2)
In order for the DEA to get information they want in other ways, they are likely to share these data with the local jurisdictions so they then can use it for revenue generation.
Um... where I am (Score:3)
Re:Um... where I am (Score:4, Insightful)
>"they are put in places folks are speeding or where they have been accidents. The data shows folks slow down when they know how fast they're driving, but it's easy to ignore your gauge and just go with the flow, which usually puts you 10-15 over."
Going with the flow is exactly what DOES NOT cause accidents. Accidents are caused primarily by:
1) Distracted driving
2) Impaired driving
3) Following too closely
4) Improper lane changes
5) Gross speed *differential*
And none of those have an "automated" "ticket in the mail" solution. Yet the obsession always seems to be over speed. Why? Because it is objective, easily obtained, and generates lots of revenue.
roads are under posted just try 55 on I-294 when i (Score:2)
roads are under posted just try to do the limit of 55 on I-294 when it's wide open.
Re: (Score:2)
roads are under posted just try to do the limit of 55 on I-294 when it's wide open.
In most areas if you post a speed limit as 45 everyone will do 55. If you post a speed limit of 55 everyone will do 65.
In some areas it's more than that. I'm not familiar with I-294 - but if it's like the I-285 around Atlanta which has similar speed limits- it's a bit of a joke and the speed people travel is way higher than the limit. Many going above 80. Realistically the police probably could raise the speed limit- it's not like they even try and enforce the speed limit anyway- no one gets pulled over
Re: (Score:1)
And that's the logic that keeps them from raising the speed limit on a highway near me from the current 55 to 65 like all of the similar highways in the area. As it stands, almost nobody, outside of extreme traffic conditions, goes less than 65. Traffic on the highways with higher speed limits have similar, if not lower, typical speeds; traffic moves at roughly the same speed around here regardless of whether the limit is 55, 65, or 75. You could raise the speed limit to 80 and it wouldn't change things at
Re: (Score:3)
also the makes the work zones at 45 will all kinds of walls a big joke as well. Now if there hard real limits and did not have as many 24/7 45 work zones then more people would slow down in them.
Re:Outside their responsibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mission creep, plain and simple.
The DEA, ICE, and everyone else are just continually ramping up surveillance on everything and deciding they need to monitor everybody just in case.
See, the DEA doesn't care about how fast your going, they're just piggy-backing the plate readers on the things which tell you how fast you're going ... this way they can monitor everybody. In this way, they can know where everybody goes in case they need to charge you with something later.
There will always be that idiotic segment of society who just think "well, they're doing this to keep me safe, so it's awesome". The problem is those people are incapable of realizing how much their own rights are being eroded in the name of Keeping You Safe From Bad People. The classic "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" line of fascists and tyrants, accepted by idiots who haven't through it through.
Land of the free? Home of the brave? Not so much. Americans have been conditioned since 9/11 to just blindly accept this shit.
Thirty years ago this would have caused outrage in America, now everyone just goes back to the Kardashians and hopes the government is going to keep them safe.
At the end of the day, this is just the continuous surveillance state ratcheting up, ensuring they monitor everybody at all times -- and the ad and analytic companies can be secretly tapped to fill in the blanks about every aspect of your life. The dystopian state marches on.
Papers please, comrade ... the State is watching you.
Re: (Score:2)
A chat down citizenship question to get induce voice print? Cell phone collection?
People upload video clips about the amount of innovative and new gov/law enforcement digital collection they see on the side of their main roads.
Put some of that collect it all equipment in more normal looking trailer-mounted speed displays and fewer questions are asked.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a gateway drug. If you're a speeder, you're also probably a junkie.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell is it the DEA's responsibility to monitor driving speeds?
If they are going faster than the speed limit, then that is probable cause to stop and search the vehicle for drugs. If they are going slower than the speed limit, then that is probable cause to stop and search the vehicle for drugs. If they are going at the speed limit, then that is probable cause to stop and search the vehicle for drugs.
Re: Outside their responsibility? (Score:1)
Pull up video of you speeding 25 years ago to make sure they always have just cause.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe they can. They can't even delay you "too long" waiting for a drug sniffing dog to arrive.
Only drive off road (Score:3, Informative)
Star Spangled Banner (Score:3)
Now flies "o'er the land of the surveilled, and the home of the afraid."
These are government roads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not care about privacy. I can make my Google Maps history public right now.
What I care is when this information will be used to rob me by local government in the form of bullshit road fines.
Easily resisted (Score:1)
Nothing some duct tape and a stroll at night time wouldnt fix. Eventually theyll assign a police officer to guard them, maxing the whole endevour expensive. Make it expensive enough and theyll stop
Re: (Score:2)
Make it expensive enough and they'll stop
Or raise your taxes.
and on a toll way they get each Plate in all lane (Score:2)
and on a toll way they get each Plate in all lanes at the tolling points.
Vandalize them (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all. We should start a national campaign of vandalizing this bullshit good-driver tax.
It's very well known that all the speed controlling devices are located in the areas where people are most likely to speed and people are most likely to speed in the areas where it is the SAFEST to speed.
The parkway with a healthy forest devider three lane on each side that has typically 50 mph limit in California is getting a 35 mph speed trap for no reason but to rob the drivers.
Vandalize them. Destroy them. A la guerre comme a la guerre.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "speed traps" you don't understand are frequently for the sake of pedestrians, bicyclists and residents and businesses within earshot. They have rights too.
Re: (Score:3)
What's needed is to eliminate money from the equation. Speeding tickets and other fines, as
Re: (Score:2)
>Those "speed traps" you don't understand
No. YOU do not understand, dimwit. You are talking out of your fat ass.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very well known that all the speed controlling devices are located in the areas where people are most likely to speed and people are most likely to speed in the areas where it is the SAFEST to speed.
No, it is not "very well known" - I only see these on back/side road, typically residential or high-pedestrian traffic areas. When I see them on highways it is just before a construction site with reduced speed limits. NONE of those areas are "SAFEST to speed".
The parkway with a healthy forest devider three lane on each side that has typically 50 mph limit in California is getting a 35 mph speed trap for no reason but to rob the drivers.
California is a special case, unlike many of the other 49 states, don't assume that what you observe in California is wide-spread, or even common, outside California. That said, I've never seen a three lane road with a speed limit of 35 that wasn't su
Re: (Score:2)
I would just suggest noncompliance and passive resistance. For instance, it's illegal in almost every state to cover your license plate. Most states do NOT make it illegal to have letters and numbers on the trunk lid around the license plate. If you happen to go off roading, you may get a line or two, or some spots of mud on your license plate.
What I'm trying to say, is that we have solved the captcha spam problem a long time ago. Let's apply it to real world problems now.
-dk
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume I would be on camera as I approached it, even if I sneaked up behind it.
If vandalism did become widespread they would definitely try to catch the culprits and unless it became widespread a vandalism campaign against them would merely be a thorn in their side.
In fact it's probably a good idea to assume you're on camera in public unless you're in the wilderness somewhere.
I'll accept the occasional speeding ticket rather than be charged with an actual crime. Would it be destruction of governmen
Re: (Score:2)
>I would assume I would be on camera as I approached it, even if I sneaked up behind it.
Shield and sword never ends, Not a reason to give up.
It's a robbery, plain and simple.
Camera Placement (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about other states, but Michigan doesn't require a front license plate. They must be mounting these on the rear and recording after you have gone by.
Most Southern states don't require a front license plate either.
Technically they are much more visible (Score:2)
Than current equally portable small mounted photocameras, sometimes well hidden besides other large roadside objects.
Redacted? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much it's spending on the signs has been redacted.
That right there. That disgusts me. How dare a government hide such information from the voting public that's paying for it all.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
"Sit down and shut up, Prole, or we'll civil-forfeit everything you own and parallel-construct your ass into a life sentence in PMITA prison!" -- Government
Ain't freedom grand?
Hey everyone, let's allow the government an even wider scope and give it more power over more of our lives and give it more of our money to do it with! What could possibly go wrong? /s
Strat
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't freedom grand?
How would we know?
Well, you Russians wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they are only buying a few, but they want drug dealers to think they are everywhere?
You have to wonder about a public bid for "secret, hidden" license plate readers, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You know, just like healthcare will bankrupt the US, so will spending on "Wars" like the one the DEA is fighting. And just like how certain services will need to be cut in the future, DEA will likely be one of them. Problem is, people are waking up to enslaving Americans (prison) but that is a workforce that would need to be replaced. So the future is upon us sooner then they would have liked.
Starting from 2016, ICE is the new DEA
So imagine they combine this with other data... (Score:2)
Not only was the defendant going 15 MPH over the speed limit, but he was also posting messages to facebook during this time. Based on his GPS data, we have concluded that he alsolied to officers about where he had been and where he was going. So we are recommending in addition to the traffic violation a charge of reckless endangerment and providing false information to officers.
Isn't it kinda stupid... (Score:2)
Isn't it kinda stupid to to publicly post that you are "hiding" license plate readers for the DEA in speed-measuring signs?
Were I a person involved in something the DEA might be interested in, I'd make a point of avoiding such signs.
It's like a policeman at a speed trap, waiting behind a billboard, but the billboard says "Warning: There's a speed radar-equipped patrol car behind this billboard!"
So what? (Score:2)
To operate on the public roadways, your vehicle needs a license plate.
By law your license plate must be readable and not obscured.
Anyone on the side of the road, or in a vehicle behind/in front of you can read the license plate.
There is no presumption of privacy as you drive around on the public roads with a sign that has a tag on it that ties that car to an individual. It's as if you are driving around with your name on the side of the vehicle, and choosing to get upset that people on the side of the road
Re: (Score:2)
>"There is no presumption of privacy as you drive around on the public roads with a sign that has a tag on it that ties that car to an individual. It's as if you are driving around with your name on the side of the vehicle, and choosing to get upset that people on the side of the road know you are there."
I hear this kind of nonsense all the time. Yes, there IS a presumption based on just reason, if nothing else. Nobody 60 years ago would really have envisioned technology that could spy on people so eas
The obvious answer (Score:2)
We need naked under 18 year olds to dance around in front of the cameras, then we can tip off the feds that the company is collecting and storing child pornography.
Thanks for the vandalism! (Score:2)
Yeah. The first people who get fucked like this will be stopping at these signs and demolishing them.
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right (Score:2, Insightful)
Which state is the DEA a part of?
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how federal funds are used to improve roads in all states., pretty much all of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Federal government can't contract their way around the law. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which is a COMPACT (Far above the power of a contract) specifically states that any power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people.
Not only is this yet another example of DRUG ENFORCEMENT trying to usurp power in violation of Title 42 and title 18 of the U.S. Code, but there are plans now currently in action that will take control back awa
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, the courts have allowed the Federal government for decades to do things outside its scope and power. The limitation of the Federal Government's power listed in the constitution no longer has any relationship to what the government does, and our judges do not care.
What you mean to say is that the Federal courts, including the Federal Supreme Court, have allowed the Federal government free reign. Since the Feds get to decide the limits of their own power is it any surprise that they generally side with themselves and not the states? Doubly so after FDR successfully bullied the Commerce Clause to be applied to literally anything.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nowhere in the constitution does it protect your right to have one."
The same could be said for a root canal or an appendectomy. The Constitution doesn't explicitly list all the rights it protects.
Re: (Score:2)
While the Constitution only expressly addresses the crimes of Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting, Findlaw expressed the following...
There are federal laws against murder and robbery of course, and these laws have been justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, as well as the Commerce Clause.
Since murder has been addressed, I can understand anti-abortion proponents claiming it's covered.
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right (Score:1)
That is true, but the question is do you have a right to privacy (not being tracked) as you drive? I personally think you do not have a right to any privacy while in public spaces (like roads), but I can see the argument for it and most people think of it as a right.
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right (Score:2)
According to precedence and all of the recent SCOTUS judges, the government is in violation when they invade a layman's general "expectation of privacy". Some of the justices (4?) go beyond that by bringing an expectation of property and trespass of to data collection.
Looking through the window of a car isn't a violation, but having your GPS position noted every hour for days would be. And all that means is that a properly scoped warrant is required.
So currently we are pretty well off. That doesn't mean the
Re: (Score:2)
Most people think of it as a right that they should have. But they do not actually have it, as the current laws exist.
Unless you were a friend of John Gotti or personally attracted the attention of the police chief, tailing people 24/7 was too expensive to be practical...ten years ago.
Now tracking every car going down every major road in every metropolitan area is within reach, and perfectly legal. It is only a question of police department budget.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that it's essentially stalking. If someone were to follow you around all day in public places, would you be okay with that? I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but the question is do you have a right to privacy (not being tracked) as you drive? I personally think you do not have a right to any privacy while in public spaces (like roads), but I can see the argument for it and most people think of it as a right.
The USSC cases United States versus Jones and Carpenter versus United States have some bearing on this. Neither decision relied on the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment but a future case involving ubiquitous surveillance which undermines a general expectation of privacy might and there appears to be some support for it.
Re: (Score:2)
They can write tickets for distracted driving, if the law allows it. Mostluly the legislators are cowards who roll out the law as a secondary issue you can't pull someone over for to avoid the wrath of the voters.
It has nothing to do with any 4th Amendment issues obviously seeable through glass windows.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Um, no you don't.
1) In America, the State makes rules at the pleasure of the voters. Full stop. They do not have ANY powers that are not granted from the voters. If you say the state has the Natural power to limit my actions you are wrong. I do NOTHING at the pleasure of the government or all this is just a farce.
2) These terms ARE negotiable. That's why we elect representatives to change our laws.
3) Where are you from?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right (Score:3)
The loophole is, there's nothing in the constitution that says the federal government can't tax citizens directly, then use those funds to bribe/cajole state governments into delegating powers implicitly reserved for states TO federal agencies as a condition of receiving those funds. That's part of the reason why the constitution originally didn't allow the federal government to tax citizens directly. Previously, Congress determined how much each state owed & states had to pay it, but states viewed the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Driving is a privilege, not a right (Score:4, Informative)
I would say this SCOTUS ruling does not support that statement:
United States v. Jones - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
" using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, that specific ruling was about attaching a device directly to someone's car, and being told they need a warrant which they didn't bother to get. As a result, that specific case got tossed, because the police essentially trespassed without a warrant and without having demonstrated probable c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.
That somehow is because we let them. You only have rights as long as you protect them from the govt. usurping them
Keep in mind the constitution strictly defines the limits of the federal govt and the 10th amendment declares this quite clearly.
Hint... everything not prohibited by law is a right ;) We let them pass laws removing our rights
So you dont have to google it... the 10th
The powers not delegated to the
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.
Please provide corroboration
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize when driving first started it was a right. Somehow the courts ruled away your rights.
No they didn't...
I can drive all I want without any license, speed limits, vehicle standards, etc. - on my own private property.
Driving on taxpayer-funded public roads, however, is not a right.
Re: (Score:2)
We're surrounded by taxpayer-funded roads, so you've effectively blocked off that right.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Right. Because private ownership would be so much better. You are an idiot. And the mod who upvoted you is an idiot as well.
Roads are natural monopolies. You do not have a choice on which road to take really. Do you ever see two parallel roads?
Die
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With over 20,000 speed related accidents
Um. I don't think the DEA is going to concern itself with speed enforcement. Unless, by 'speed', you mean methamphetamine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could always lease a vehicle from an Arizona company (no front plate required in AZ).
As far as the subject of the article goes, automated plate readers often can capture both front and rear plate images.
Re: (Score:2)
Most states require you to change to their state plates 30 days after moving there.
Incorporate.
We have several local businesses that maintain their vehicle fleets with out of state plates. Florida and Texas seem to be pretty popular. They have done this for a few decades, as far as I can see. I assume that they maintain an office 'front' in these locations to act as the vehicles home for registration purposes. So that's why I said 'lease'.
Wow (Score:2)
"Your women"? Does come as somewhat patriarchial, old chap.