A Threat to Privacy in the Expanded Use of License Plate-Scanning Cameras? (yahoo.com) 149
Long-time Slashdot reader BigVig209 shares a Chicago Tribune report "on how suburban police departments in the Chicago area use license plate cameras as a crime-fighting tool."
Critics of the cameras note that only a tiny percentage of the billions of plates photographed lead to an arrest, and that the cameras generally haven't been shown to prevent crime. More importantly they say the devices are unregulated, track innocent people and can be misused to invade drivers' privacy. The controversy comes as suburban police departments continue to expand the use of the cameras to combat rising crime. Law enforcement officials say they are taking steps to safeguard the data. But privacy advocates say the state should pass a law to ensure against improper use of a nationwide surveillance system operated by private companies.
Across the Chicago area, one survey by the nonprofit watchdog group Muckrock found 88 cameras used by more than two dozen police agencies. In response to a surge in shootings, after much delay, state police are taking steps to add the cameras to area expressways. In the northwest suburbs, Vernon Hills and Niles are among several departments that have added license plate cameras recently. The city of Chicago has ordered more than 200 cameras for its squad cars. In Indiana, the city of Hammond has taken steps to record nearly every vehicle that comes into town.
Not all police like the devices. In the southwest suburbs, Darien and La Grange had issues in years past with the cameras making false readings, and some officers stopped using them...
Homeowner associations may also tie their cameras into the systems, which is what led to the arrest in Vernon Hills. One of the leading sellers of such cameras, Vigilant Solutions, a part of Chicago-based Motorola Solutions, has collected billions of license plate numbers in its National Vehicle Location Service. The database shares information from thousands of police agencies, and can be used to find cars across the country... Then there is the potential for abuse by police. One investigation found that officers nationwide misused agency databases hundreds of times, to check on ex-girlfriends, romantic rivals, or perceived enemies. To address those concerns, 16 states have passed laws restricting the use of the cameras.
The article cites an EFF survey which found 99.5% of scanned plates weren't under suspicion — "and that police shared their data with an average of 160 other agencies."
"Two big concerns the American Civil Liberties Union has always had about the cameras are that the information can be used to track the movements of the general population, and often is sold by operators to third parties like credit and insurance companies."
Across the Chicago area, one survey by the nonprofit watchdog group Muckrock found 88 cameras used by more than two dozen police agencies. In response to a surge in shootings, after much delay, state police are taking steps to add the cameras to area expressways. In the northwest suburbs, Vernon Hills and Niles are among several departments that have added license plate cameras recently. The city of Chicago has ordered more than 200 cameras for its squad cars. In Indiana, the city of Hammond has taken steps to record nearly every vehicle that comes into town.
Not all police like the devices. In the southwest suburbs, Darien and La Grange had issues in years past with the cameras making false readings, and some officers stopped using them...
Homeowner associations may also tie their cameras into the systems, which is what led to the arrest in Vernon Hills. One of the leading sellers of such cameras, Vigilant Solutions, a part of Chicago-based Motorola Solutions, has collected billions of license plate numbers in its National Vehicle Location Service. The database shares information from thousands of police agencies, and can be used to find cars across the country... Then there is the potential for abuse by police. One investigation found that officers nationwide misused agency databases hundreds of times, to check on ex-girlfriends, romantic rivals, or perceived enemies. To address those concerns, 16 states have passed laws restricting the use of the cameras.
The article cites an EFF survey which found 99.5% of scanned plates weren't under suspicion — "and that police shared their data with an average of 160 other agencies."
"Two big concerns the American Civil Liberties Union has always had about the cameras are that the information can be used to track the movements of the general population, and often is sold by operators to third parties like credit and insurance companies."
Not at all (Score:2, Insightful)
"More importantly they say the devices are unregulated, track innocent people"
No, they track cars.
To track people, there are millions of cameras on the outside of building, railway stations, trains, buses, taxis, Uber, ATMs and so on.
Re: Not at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Yah, pretty much like scanning someone's ID at every corner is tracking the paper, not the person.
Re: Not at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Yah, pretty much like scanning someone's ID at every corner is tracking the paper, not the person.
Sure, because just like our pickup truck, sometimes the spouse, one of the kids, or even on rare occasions my neighbor, takes my Driver's license with them.
Re: Not at all (Score:2)
They do it with mine.
They never yake my car though.
Re: (Score:2)
Every step is a significant change. There are millions of cameras but at the moment nobody has access to all of them, and where there is access most of them don't do licence plate reading or facial recognition, and those that do mostly don't report that data back to a central government database in real-time.
This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's an understanding that corporations are gathering more surveillance data and (outside of GDPR countries) sharing/selling it, and there are clear and tangible ram
Plates were meant for tracking (Score:3)
Being that nearly every country in the world requires cars to have a unique identifier prominently placed on the rear and often in the front with large clear to read text isn't something you do to protect people's privacy.
They are there for the sole purpose of identification of the car and link it to it's owner.
That said the problem is say I get a ticket for running a red light just from my plate where I get points on my license without proof that I was driving my car at the time. It could had been my wife
Re: (Score:3)
And that of course is the drawback to allowing someone else to use your car - you are now assuming (or sharing) liability for whatever that person does with it.
If you loan someone your car
Breaks Spousal Privalage (Score:2)
Doesn't this break the doctrine that spouses do not have to testify against each other?
As that formal bond/contract is equivalent to Priest Confession booth and Dr privilege
Seems like an obvious constitutional violation that in order to be not-guilty, the party must identify someone else. Office/Court, I think the president was driving my car, give him the ticket.
"You don't have to turn someone else, just prove that it was not you. " That is still guilty until proven innocent. Officer/court, I am prohibit
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to turn someone else, just prove that it was not you. In most of the cases, if not all, the driver is also on the photo of the infraction. Else, you can easily invalidate the fine due to lack of proof. At least, that's how it work in France (the only contry where I received a fine without being in the driver seat. I was able to show that I was not in the driver seat from the evidednce photo of the infraction) and should in any sane country.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to turn someone else, just prove that it was not you. In most of the cases, if not all, the driver is also on the photo of the infraction. Else, you can easily invalidate the fine due to lack of proof. At least, that's how it work in France (the only contry where I received a fine without being in the driver seat. I was able to show that I was not in the driver seat from the evidednce photo of the infraction) and should in any sane country.
In the US, some jurisdictions did an end run by making it an administrative fee, thus no points and no going to court. You want to fight it, talk to the private company running the for profit red light camera. Some courts, IIRC, said, "Uh, can't do that" and a number of jurisdictions scrapped red light cameras for a variety of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Mass facial recognition is generally stupid. It's resource intensive and generally meaningless.
When I was working for "big telco", I regularly saw presentations of our latest tracking technology. In fact, it was REALLY accurate. We were able to watch live real-time data of the movement of billions of connected gsm, 3g, lte, 5g and NB-IOT devices with high precision. We sold the data to traffic planning organizations.
The important thing to realize about these systems is that you don't actual
Obviously it doesn't work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am committing no crime (Score:2)
I, as a grey law abiding citizen with a boring life, do not care what they do with my number plate pictures.
But I as one datapoint in a vast collection of similar datapoints over a significant span of time, which will have the heck datamined and A.I.-ed out of it, do care a lot about the taking of pictures.
Unfortunately the H. sapiens mind works much slower than tech innovates, and most of us Joe Taxpayers are still somewhat stuck in the James Bond/Cold War-era paradigm of spying by having a human observe
From the dept of irony ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... a local municipality won't even enforce license plates at all right now (I mean, that you even have one). Because it discriminates or something.
Out of curiosity... are you complaining or praising?
You know what else is a threat to privacy? (Score:2)
People who don't mind their own business.
We effing need to stop being afraid of how technology *MIGHT* be used and just enact laws that actually punish people who *DO* end up using such technologies irresponsibly or in ways that endanger people's safety and security. And of course, follow through with enacting appropriate punishment in places that use those technologies when such abuse is discovered. One thing that might go a long way to making this possible is the adoption of strict policies regradin
ROFL (Score:2)
ROFL!
Yes it would be nice if tyrants and corrupt police would obey such laws, or consistently enforce them on each other. But they don't. In particular, they don't EXACTLY WHEN YOU WOULD NEED IT.
"Who will watch the wat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he answered. Your accountability and audit will just not be done when it need to be done. For that matter, the third party could be as corrupt than the perpetrator or found dead due to falling from a high rise building by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
I have and I will always remain solidly opposed to any attempts to regulate usage of technology by *ANY* party to do something which humans can, in fact, already do. Human beings can remember shit. Should people with exceptional memories not be allowed to work in the police force or the government? What about in the future when chips might be implanted in the brain to perhaps treat memory disorders? What if such technologies can actually enhance memory beyond what is currently humanly feasible? Will p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the data isn't collected, then it can't be *USED*, period, even if that use might otherwise benefit society. Outlaw the misuse, and follow through with punishing people who misuse it.
You know, kind of like what is done with other dangerous technologies, like guns or hell, even driving in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Our society is safe *enough* ... the road to Hell is paved with "for the benefit of society." "For society" and for "the cheeeldren" are the mating calls of the stinking coward.
I consider "misuse" to be anything other than a violent crime investigation or a situation where a life is in danger. Not for establishing residency in tax cases, not for estabilishing infidelity in divorce cases, or any other such trifling crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidently not.
Re: You know what else is a threat to privacy? (Score:2)
What privacy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there still anybody who thinks their movements outside their home are somehow "private"? Your every move is tracked, every day, and it's been this way for years.
Nobody actually cares about YOU and where YOU are. What "they" care about is...Can we sell you something?
From a crime perspective, tracking allows investigators to reconstruct the movements of people, after a crime has occurred. Perpetrators are discovered by filtering for those who were at the crime scene, and also at the gun shop where the weap
Re: (Score:2)
Perpetrators are discovered by filtering for those who were ... at the gun shop where the weapon was purchased
Actually, registration records (let alone gun store videos) are almost NEVER used, or useful, for finding or convicting a perpetrator who uses a gun in a crime. That's just a song-and-dance that proto-tyrants use to justify collecting information that will someday be useful to disarm their potential opposition when they (or some successors or invaders) get around to their end-game.
Criminals are (by
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about gun registration, you did. My example was just that, an example. It wasn't meant to include all possible scenarios.
Here's a real example: The Austin Bomber in 2018 was tracked through a license plate caught on camera. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22... [cnn.com] This is exactly the type of research I was describing.
Motives and Limits (Score:2)
If a crime is committed and a report from the crime scene includes a license plate, then law enforcement can run the plate through the database linked to cameras and in a pretty short order, they may be able to determine most recent movements of the vehicle. The theory goes that this would be a reasonable mechanism for catching a criminal or suspected criminal in the event that a motor vehicle is u
Re: (Score:2)
2. Presumption of Innocence Like IMSI Capture devices [the so-called "stingrays" that capture and track cell-phone use] ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) technology simply cannot be set to filter out people not suspects of committing a crime. In other words, at the point of data collection, [and given that the stated purpose of the technology is to catch criminals] every motorists is being presumed guilty. We could debate whether this amounts to a Fourth Amendment infringement, but even if not, it definitely steps over the line of "presumption of innocence".
A presumption of innocence in court, not when a cop watches you. In many ways, this is like a high tech stakeout, except the ramifications are much wider reaching.
3. Limited Value This might be a weaker argument and it will pivot around any data we might have concerning the "average number of passengers in a vehicle involved in a crime"... in that we have to question the value of establishing that "Vehicle X" passed a camera in "Location Y" at "Time Z" in the broader context. Can that establish the driver? The passengers? No. So now the value derived from the knowledge of the whereabouts of a vehicle at a precise moment in time is eroded, unless the driver is also the suspect.
One value is in looking for patterns. What cars were at x, y, and z at times of interest.
One of the most interesting elements of this yet to be evaluated [because getting the data would be hard] would be to ask a random sample of Police Forces: "OK, can you provide us with comprehensive details of all the cases where the use of ANPR technology either directly solved a crime or directly contributed to the solving of a crime?" We'd have to set some explicit limits about what we mean by "directly contributed to the solving of a crime" - for example, using images to trace the route of a stolen vehicle and being able to extrapolate a likely destination and then retrieving the vehicle - but that should be possible.
Looking at tag data and linking it to crimes is far older than ALPR. IIRC, a parking ticket led to the "Son of Sam."
As with any technology, there are good and bad uses. The challenge is in how do you control it.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The agencies that purchase these cameras are either part of or funded by some form of government, whether that be federal, state or local [for example - in other countries it will be different]. So why not a simple Act of Congress to set up a "Federal Data Privacy Watchdog" that has as their sole purpose the job of making sure that Uncle Sam abides
The public can weaponize this as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OpenALPR [wikipedia.org]
ALPR [awesomeopensource.com]
You can run it on your Android phone also (Score:2)
https://github.com/openalpr/op... [github.com]
https://github.com/sujaybhowmi... [github.com]
Which greatly lowers the difficulty in setting up your own collection of readers. Because you know no one needs to hide how often or when they go to a fertility clinic (will you get that promotion if your wife is expecting which will take you away from work soon?), doctor (your CFO is at the hospital how often?), liquor store, bar, fireworks store, police station, court of law, lawyer, social services o
Re: (Score:2)
Immunity passports... (Score:2)
This is why I'm glad that "immunity passport" schemes have mostly failed in the US. The issue is that the immunity passport amounts to an electronic ID which is linked to name and DOB info, so any store using it (as well as the app provider itself) could generate a database with:
1. Name
2. DoB
3. Entry time/date
4. Location
This would be a goldmine for law enforcement and attorneys involved in civil suits such as divorce cases ... "we have a record of you, Mr. Jones, checking into Ali Baba's Turkish Restau
Re: (Score:2)
Stolen vehicles... (Score:2)
Re:What are you all hiding? (Score:5, Interesting)
5 years from now, you're running for a seat on the school board.
Your opponent comes out with: "Mr Hammer, would you care to explain why your car was at the strip club 3 times a week through most of 2022? Does Mrs. Hammer know you were there?"
Totally legal, but that might cost you the election.
Taking pictures at a train station (Score:3)
As a child, I remember my refugee-immigrant father "Dad-splaining" that one doesn't have the same freedoms on a European trip as "back home" and that one should not take photos in a train station because the authorities would think you are spying for a foreign government or planning an act of sabotage.
I guess after 9-11, there is a lot more suspicion and rules about taking pictures in a public facility in the US, now. There are a large number of train enthusiasts, however, who are put out when the polic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe you just enjoy it.
What exactly is wrong with openly going to strip clubs? It's better than somebody secretly watching kiddy-porn on the internet (which wouldn't be caught on camera).
Re: (Score:2)
About that, I tapped into your web cam and your screen, its all been recorded. Now I won't tell anyone and I'll delete the video if you send 3 Bitcoins to..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Mrs. Hammer knows I was there. She's a bouncer there and she mentioned she had to throw you out several times for activities that even they thought well outside the normal. So what were you doing, exactly?
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:2)
Does Mrs. Hammer know you were there?
Mrs. Hammer was driving my car. She works there.
The correct response to that is (Score:2)
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Elections are the least of it.
Monitor enough people, and coincidences start to
Re: (Score:2)
"Mr Hammer, would you care to explain why your car was at the strip club 3 times a week through most of 2022?"
Mr Hammer has my vote!
Re: (Score:3)
That's how democracy is supposed to work.
Only if it's balanced, ie. everybody has the same access to all the information.
In real life not it's the people in power who have the most access and the resulting imbalance completely breaks democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are you all hiding? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't care if they know where I am or not.
From insurance to your employer. Trust me. Yes you do. You just don't realize it yet. If you struggle to believe this, just ask any leader if they would be willing to give up 6 months worth of their cell phone GPS data to the public.
Your cell phone it already telling them this information, all the time. But i'm not doing anything illegal, what illegal thing are are you up to that you object to this so violently?
Agreed. Sad that we citizens now must question and find the very corrupt thing they're doing, as they distract and delude the masses with bullshit excuses (like "safety" or "for the children") to justify it.
Re: (Score:3)
A phone is opt-in and can be left at home. For many of us, it’s a practical impossibility to go more than a few miles without a car.
More importantly, what business is it of theirs? In the vast majority of cases, privacy is about protecting perfectly legal behavior. For instance, why don’t you want a camera in the bathrooms you use while in public? After all, we already know what you’re likely are doing in there. What do you have to hide? Why not allow cameras in your home too? After all, y
Re: (Score:2)
According to a recent Supreme Court decision, the government can't track you by cell phone data without a warrant supported by proabable cause. They can, however, achieve essentially the same thing by networking security cameras and license plate readers together.
The danger this poses to you isn't necessarily that they're going to track *you*. The danger is that they're going to use it on *other people* in a way that ultimately affects your freedoms. It might be opposition politicians who get tracked, o
Re: (Score:2)
More validation for your story about LEO. This one is in Florida and is just as scary because it's Officer against Officer, which is just as bad as the Blue Flu where police all call in sick at the same time.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/l... [sun-sentinel.com]
You'll see, that a state trooper doing her job in 2011, pulled over a car that was doing 120MPH, the car was driven by another police officer, She did her job. She then became a target of other officers.
Now expand that to today, and you get on the cancel culture shit lis
Re: (Score:2)
This is a tired argument, but I suppose every generation needs to have it explained again and again. Consider this: the information is controlled by a government. The people in charge of that government have access to that information. They can use it to dig up "dirt" about their political opponents (information about activities that aren't illegal, but the public may frown on). Example: maybe the data strongly hints that the opponent is gay because of a location they've visited, but hasn't "come out" y
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:2)
They can use it to dig up "dirt" about their political opponents
People/groups other than government officials have political opponents. And some of those groups don't have our national interests at heart. Needless to say, such people can't access gov't APR records. So they do their surveillance using lower tech methods. Law enforcemrnt is tasked with keeping tabs on them. And that's where you'll se the cameras.
We have a city mayor who has ben the target of harassment and surveillance by such "non governmental" actors. Having been a federal prosecutor in a previous post
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to socialism
Sounds more like fascism or simple totalitarianism as I don't see how big government spying on people has anything to do with the people owning the means of production.
As you say, it is the government protecting private businesses or itself.
Re: (Score:2)
the people owning the means of production
That's communism. Socialism is where a government bureaucracy owns it on your behalf. Communism is the ideal classless society where bureaucrats are no longer needed and everyone can sit around in a circle and have an equal voice in decisions. But it's purely theoretical because I don't see town meetings where everyone gets a vote on which pothole to fix next.
Hence the need for a ruling class. And if you don't like it and you make trouble, your pothole just keeps growing. Mine, on the other hand, got patch
Re: (Score:2)
Let me introduce you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Communism is when the government is gone and likely the free market as well, mostly due to being unneeded, at least in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "they"?
It's a lot less of an issue if lots of individuals and corporations have single data points that they can't link to anything else, and only share them when the police properly request access to solve a crime.
If that data is going into a central database somewhere, if they are selling it, if the police or government have unfettered access, that's a huge problem.
So who is "they" in your example? Because the only people who should have phone records are the phone company, and even then the fact t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The innocence project has found lots of innocents on death row. Jut because you're not doing anything illegal doesn't mean that you can't find yourself accused. Might get off if you pay the lawyer enough but it'll still follow you around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'd say a combination of overinflated sense of self-importance combined with a failure to assess the hierarchy of risk.
I've had this same argument with people who are viscerally opposed to LPR cameras for no other reason than "I'll be watched on t
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:2)
Just Google "GPS car tracker" as an example.
GPS trackers only work on people they already have a reason to follow. APR is what gets you on that list.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that Google's geolocation history for your cell phone will get you on that list a whole lot sooner than any database of license plate captures at city intersections. And for that matter, make it much easier to actually track you.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is easier for the police and locally government to access, their own database or Google's?
Re: (Score:2)
Google's. The police database is probably logged and audited. And they have to answer to courts (warrants required, etc.) and oversight committees. Stopping Google from handing that data out would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one way to look at it, and likely true if we were talking about Facebook. In Googles case, that data is their crown jewels that they depend on for their business model. They aren't going to screw with their business model.
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:2)
there are ways to anonymize data and protect peoples privacy. Such as only using a hash of the license plate data within a database. But we don't have muuch regulation, so assume the right things are not being done.
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:2)
Hashing as a form of making data anonymous only works if the source data has enough possible values. License plate possibilities are far from too small. Assume 6 alphanumeric values. 36^6 = 2176782336 possible values. Trivial for a computer to run through all potential values and construct a reverse lookup.
Re: What are you all hiding? (Score:2)
You are an anonymous statistic until the moment you aren't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are you all hiding? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your statement of Nosy fucks is right.
I have a young man in my development, his father ( good neighbor, spoke weekly for years ) recently passed away and I have been somewhat of father figure in helping him move forward in his life. The young man drives exotic cars. I always explained to him the DWB ( Driving while black, and I am white ) rules of 10 - 2 and the no sir, yes sir ( which get's LEO's less aggressive ) and he is an outstanding young man.
Everyone in my development wants to know how he has the $180K-$300K cars and they come up to me and ask me... I always say, "Why don't you ask him!". I do know what he does for a living, and can easily afford one of these cars monthly, so it's not anything illegal. Yet they all think he's into drugs or illegal's stuff. They want me to tell them. I love saying "I know what he does and I can not repeat it out loud".
I remind him all the time, never tell anyone what you do, because they think you are doing something illegal therefor they won't ask you for money.
I dislike nosy fucks when it comes to personal information.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see where you are coming from, yet, his father was a semi private man, and very successful.
I would rather guard a persons privacy than disclose. It's no one's business what anyone does ( Currently
in condo association they ask for tax returns and that's enough information being looked at by mostly
unqualified people). You are in the USA, which you are granted some rights to be able to stay private.
I exercise the right to not say anything about anyone unless someone's safety is concerned. And what
a man d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to your point : If the person in question doesn't mind disclosure.
Someone tells you something, I always personally think it's in confidence until told otherwise.
Maybe your perspective is different. Just nobody's business what someone tells me and I let
that person speak on there own behalf. Keeps me out of other peoples bullshit and gossip.
Have a great day. And if you see me say hello.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is overinflated sense of self importance, ooh someone is spying on me. People, get over yourself, as an individual your movements are of no interest to anyone, nobody cares.
Sure, until they do ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want the police to investigate every lead in a crime. If they can determine who might have been involved in a crime (or who might have witnessed something), I want them to "show up" at their doorstep.
I have on a couple of occasions had police show up at my doorstep while investigating crimes. In at least one of those cases, it was clear that prior to talking to me they thought I might be a suspect in whatever it was that they were investigating (I never found out what it was). After talking to them for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Check out the innocence project, not committing crimes does not prevent you from being convicted.
Re: (Score:2)
My insurance company cares and might decide that I drive too often in the more expensive zone, a subjective call.
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right. (Score:2)
I'm opting for 4 -- I commit no crime.
Can I drive know without being constantly tracked?
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right. (Score:2)
Bah. That's 3, not 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Never drove 1 mph over the limit, rolled through a stop sign, parked 13 inches away from the curb, or any other driving or parking infraction?
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right. (Score:2)
What's your point? That 300 mio. people should be tracked because I'm speeding?
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed to commit no crimes, so not worried. The truth is that you have committed crimes and can be targeted
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right. (Score:2)
That's nit how it works.
Last I remember I was punished for crimes I commited without other 300 mio. people being tracked, or without me being tracked constantly whether I had commited a crime or not.
So you need to tell me again why they should be tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
Rereading your original post, seems I was mistaken in what you meant, apologies.
Re: Driving is a privilege, not a right. (Score:2)
Apologies on Slashdot? :-) I guss I can take that off my bucket list now...
Joking aside, I think people often confuse accountability with full surveillance, respectively public anonymity with complete anarchy.
I'm all for accountability, and persecution when crimes are committed, but that has worked well enough for thousands of years without the panopticon. Whenever the powers that be propose full surveillance "against crime" that're actually just making excuses for realising control phantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Canadian, apologizing is what we do.
Seriously, the countries that have managed to reduce crime to close to zero are usually hell holes. Wouldn't be surprised if N. Korea has the least crime in the world and I doubt that anyone would want to live there, at least as an average person.
Re: (Score:2)
In the United States, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, only what the courts rule. Think of how many laws Congress has passed limiting speech as the courts have ruled that really the 1st is only about political speech or how many places the government will stop you from bearing arms, not to mention all the people not allowed to own arms, little well bear them.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the United States Constitution make driving on government roads via driving a vehicle a right?
The document is not long so it shouldn't be hard to find. Please cite Article & Section or Amendment number, and Clause.
Recall that the United States Constitution grants powers to the Federal government and, through the Bill of Rights, highlights some specific powers that the Federal government doesn't have (although, that list is superfluous as the Ninth Amendment clarifies).
With the adoption of the