Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime Electronic Frontier Foundation Government Privacy

San Jose Police Announce Three Stolen Vehicles Recovered Using Automatic License Plate Reader (kron4.com) 114

Saturday night in the Silicon Valley city of San Jose, the assistant police chief tweeted out praise for their recently-upgraded Automatic License Plate Readers: Officers in Air3 [police helicopter], monitoring the ALPR system, got alerted to 3 stolen cars. They directed ground units to the cars. All 3 drivers in custody! No dangerous vehicle pursuits occurred, nor were they needed.

2 drivers tried to run away. But, you can't outrun a helicopter!"

There's photos — one of the vehicles appears to be a U-Haul pickup truck — and the tweet drew exactly one response, from San Jose mayor Matt Mahan: "Nice job...! Appreciate the excellent police work and great to see ALPRs having an impact. Don't steal cars in San Jose!"
Some context: The San Jose Spotlight (a nonprofit local news site) noted that prior to last year license plate readers had been mounted exclusively on police patrol cars (and in use since 2006). But last year the San Jose Police Department launched a new "pilot program" with four cameras mounted at a busy intersection, that "captured nearly 300,000 plate scans in just the last month, according to city data."

By August this had led to plans for 150 more stationary ALPR cameras, a local TV station reported. "Just this week, police said they solved an armed robbery and arrested a suspected shooter thanks to the cameras." During a forum to update the community, San Jose police also mentioned success stories in other cities like Vallejo where they've reported a 100% increase in identifying stolen vehicles. San Jose is now installing hundreds around the city and the first batch is coming in the next two to three months....

The biggest concern among those attending Wednesday's virtual forum was privacy. But the city made it clear the data is only shared with trained police officers and certain city staff, no out-of-state or federal agencies. "Anytime that someone from the San Jose Police Department accesses the ALPR system, they have to input a reason, the specific plates they are looking for and all of that information is logged so that we can keep track of how many times its being used and what its being used for," said Albert Gehami, Digital Privacy Officer for San Jose.

More privacy concerns were raised in September, reports the San Jose Spotlight: The San Jose City Council unanimously approved a policy Tuesday that formally bans the police department from selling any license plate data, using that information for investigating a person's immigration status or for monitoring legally protected activities like protests or rallies.

Even with these new rules, some privacy advocates and community groups are still opposed to the technology. Victor Sin, chair of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of ACLU of Northern California, expressed doubt that the readers are improving public safety. He made the comments in a letter to the council from himself and leaders of four other community organizations. "Despite claims that (automated license plate reader) systems can reduce crime, researchers have expressed concerns about the rapid acquisition of this technology by law enforcement without evidence of its efficacy," the letter reads. Groups including the Asian Law Alliance and San Jose-Silicon Valley NAACP also said the city should reduce the amount of time it keeps license plate data on file down from one year.....

Mayor Sam Liccardo said he's already convinced the readers are useful, but added the council should try to find a way to measure their effect. "It's probably not a bad idea for us to decide what are the outcomes we're trying to achieve, and if there is some reasonable metric that captures that outcome in a meaningful way," Liccardo said. "Was this used to actually help us arrest anybody, or solve a crime or prevent an accident?"

An EFF position paper argues that "ALPR data is gathered indiscriminately, collecting information on millions of ordinary people." By plotting vehicle times and locations and tracing past movements, police can use stored data to paint a very specific portrait of drivers' lives, determining past patterns of behavior and possibly even predicting future ones — in spite of the fact that the vast majority of people whose license plate data is collected and stored have not even been accused of a crime.... [ALPR technology] allows officers to track everyone..."
Maybe the police officer's tweet was to boost public support for the technology? It's already led to a short report from another local news station: San Jose police recovered three stolen cars using their automated license-plate recognition technology (ALPR) on Saturday, according to officials with the San Jose Police Department.

Officers inside of Air3, one of SJPD's helicopters, spotted three stolen cars using ALPR before directing ground units their way. Police say no pursuits occurred, though two of the drivers tried to run away.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Jose Police Announce Three Stolen Vehicles Recovered Using Automatic License Plate Reader

Comments Filter:
  • In the short term, all of these license plate recognition cameras are going to catch a lot of criminals.. But how about in the long term?
    It's going to become common knowledge that license plate cameras are everywhere, so criminals are just going to start obscuring their plates or changing them out for false ones.

    You're also going to get false positives from the false plates, someone will clone your plate and you'll get police turning up at your door because a car with your plates was seen in the vicinity of

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday January 09, 2023 @07:59AM (#63191508) Homepage Journal

      It's going to become common knowledge that license plate cameras are everywhere, so criminals are just going to start obscuring their plates or changing them out for false ones.

      It's already illegal to obscure your license plate, so that's an obvious flag.

      Changing plates out for false ones is a more complicated subject. Right now it doesn't matter so much, but soon they will combine vehicle recognition with ANPR so that they can detect when the numbers don't match the registration information. At that point the criminals will also have to either get access to the same database, or build their own databases with ANPR and vehicle recognition. Even just detecting the marque and the color would be a good step, but the model of the vehicle is also relevant.

      • I'd prefer the cops have a bit harder time finding stolen cars and get rid of the plate readers, to preserve a bit of privacy.

        Besides, my car's insured...if it gets stolen, big deal...insurance will just pay for another one.

        Better than having the cops capable of plotting out my travel habits for analysis, etc.

        • Besides, my car's insured...if it gets stolen, big deal...insurance will just pay for another one.

          This can also catch people who don't have insurance.

          The ones who are making your insurance payments so expensive...

          • The ones who are making your insurance payments so expensive...

            The ones making the insurance payments expensive are the ones making the insurance obligatory, but not capping the insurance company's profits, or requiring pricing transparency. Not only should no insurance a person is legally required to maintain be a profit center, but even more importantly, the pricing formulas should always be public. I consider it an economic crime to require insurance otherwise.

            People like to make the argument that you simply don't have to do the things that require that insurance, b

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              The ones who are making your insurance payments so expensive...

              The ones making the insurance payments expensive are the ones making the insurance obligatory, but not capping the insurance company's profits, or requiring pricing transparency. Not only should no insurance a person is legally required to maintain be a profit center, but even more importantly, the pricing formulas should always be public. I consider it an economic crime to require insurance otherwise.

              And at that point, you might as well just have the government pay for all damage caused by vehicles, because competition likely has no meaningful impact if there are no profits that can be cut to compete better. Pay for it though taxes so that the people who can afford to pay the most do so. And so on.

              • And at that point, you might as well just have the government pay for all damage caused by vehicles, because competition likely has no meaningful impact if there are no profits that can be cut to compete better.

                That doesn't follow. I didn't say to mandate profits, which is what generally happens, I said to force transparency. Then people can see what they're paying for, and make educated comparisons.

                • I don't know about you but I'm always getting spammed by insurance companies. I'm sure you go with the first quote you can get your hands on and then wonder why you're taking it in the ass, but I don't, I always shop around.

                  • I'm sure you go with the first quote you can get your hands on and then wonder why you're taking it in the ass

                    But enough of your tawdry little fantasies.

                • That doesn't follow. I didn't say to mandate profits, which is what generally happens, I said to force transparency. Then people can see what they're paying for, and make educated comparisons.

                  What exactly is stopping you from calling three different companies and asking for a quote?

            • Capping insurance profits actually increases costs because it leads insurance companies to push for higher levels of coverage, so they can take the same percent of a greater dollar amount.
      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Obscuring your plate is illegal yes, but having your plate obscured by dirt all they can do is make you clean it unless there are other suspicious factors. You can claim it wasn't covered in mud when you set out and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.

        It's not hard to find another vehicle of the same model and color as your own, especially for the more common ones. Unless you have some really exotic vehicle (which would be a stupid thing to do if you're trying to commit crimes undetected) chances are a

        • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday January 09, 2023 @09:29AM (#63191710) Homepage Journal

          You can claim it wasn't covered in mud when you set out and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.

          It really wouldn't, unless you actually drove through a mud bog, and there's good reason for there to be mud on your license plate. So unless you're in a lifted 4x4 with mud tires, and the rest of the vehicle has mud on it too, nobody's going to buy that shit. Cops may be dumb, but they're not that dumb.

          • I don't know about San Jose, but here in Los Angeles all of the road signs are caked with at least a decade (probably two) worth of soot and graffiti. If it's good enough for road signs, it's good enough for license plates IMO.

            I wouldn't have an excuse though because I have Arizona plates, and unlike here, they actually maintain everything.

        • "You can claim it wasn't covered in mud when you set out and it would be very hard to prove otherwise."

          You act like police have to prove you knew mud was there. News flash, they don't. They also don't have to prove that you knew that tail light was out. If it burnt out as you were pulled over or 3 years prior, you're still getting a ticket.

        • You can claim it wasn't covered in mud when you set out and it would be very hard to prove otherwise.

          You can claim what you want it makes no difference. The law doesn't include "at the start of the trip" or "obscured by anything other than mud". The law only cares about the state at the time of recording and you will be fined or not accordingly.

    • Re:Long term effects (Score:5, Interesting)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @08:15AM (#63191522) Journal

      1. Read plate
      2. If reported stolen --> alert police & save record
      3. If registered owner has outstanding warrant --> alert police & save record
      4. Recognize make/model/color
      5. If plate doesn't match registered car --> alert police & save record
      6. If amber/silver alert (missing child/elderly person) -- alert police & save record
      7. Else, set short retention to delete record

      The key here will be to make damn sure they don't retain records after a short period of time -- like 30 days maximum. That'd give time to search history on reported crimes. Court orders should be needed for longer retention times, and they should be for specific purposes and potential targets.

      • by v1 ( 525388 )

        That's just what I was going to say... once they've reviewed the records and determined that it's not wanted, they don't have any legitimate reason to keep the information.

        If they're resisting throwing out the information,they intend to (or want to keep the option for) breaking their rules later.

        • Re:Long term effects (Score:4, Interesting)

          by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @08:55AM (#63191612) Homepage Journal

          That's just what I was going to say... once they've reviewed the records and determined that it's not wanted, they don't have any legitimate reason to keep the information.

          If they're resisting throwing out the information,they intend to (or want to keep the option for) breaking their rules later.

          Do you really trust law enforcement even if they say they are deleting records and having no retention of them?

          I mean, hell....the ATF is supposedly restricted from creating a firearms database by congressional law, yet....they with rules changes are now requiring form 4473 (the only you fill out for a background check when buying a gun) from all dealers to be retained indefinitely....all those paper records are now being saved in perpetuity.

          They are scanning them to make them more searchable.

          Again, there are specific laws prohibiting them from doing this...yet, they are.

          You think your local force will willing delete all records from the plate scanners with little to no oversight?

      • by jhoegl ( 638955 )
        I think that is a fair solution. It needs to be a law though, otherwise "trust me, Im the Authority" wont work.
      • Police will argue they need records longer to determine if/when terrorists have staked out targets.

        I agree this is problematic, but the "terrorist" argument usually trumps privacy concerns.

      • speaking as an attorney . . . . . criminals are *stupid*.

        Hawkins First Law: "Criminals do not have what we think of as 'average intelligence'. If they did, we would be in *serious* trouble."

        The bulk of them confess once arrested . . . and their plans, are, well . . .

        anyway, *some* would plan and not get caught, absolutely. But a very large fraction, I'd be surprised if less than a strong majority, will run around with the stolen plates at least for a while.

        hawk, esq.

      • Find the source code on github. So anyone can build their own tracking system to track everyone and do anything they want with the data.
    • Criminals and non-criminals are already obscuring their plates. I can't believe how many cars I see with tinted plastic covers over the plates—some nearly even completely opaque—and the police don't seem to do anything about it.
      • Criminals are already obscuring their plates.

        FTFY. And you are correct, unfortunately [nytimes.com].

      • Maybe, but some criminals do not. For example I heard the Idaho killer, who was a criminology PhD student, did not. That may have been because he had not pre meditated the crime. Not sure, either way surveillance caught him going to and from the crime scene. So at minimum it will help solve some opportunistic crime. The harder you make it to do a crime, I presume the less people will bother with it. The required extra thinking and planning and fear of getting caught will filter out many criminals. Not to me

    • It's going to become common knowledge that license plate cameras are everywhere, so criminals are just going to start obscuring their plates or changing them out for false ones.

      Obscuring plates will generate alerts also though. And plates that don't match the type of car will become a huge red flag as well as camera systems get better and better...

      But remember we live in a world where robbers destroying power substations didn't even do something as simple as leaving phones at home during the attacks. Robb

  • If you drive around with a metal box with a number on the outside for everyone to read, film and photograph legally, why complain?

    Take a cab, drive a bike or walk if you want privacy, best with a mask.

    • Cool and while you're walking down the street we're also going to require you to give up your finger and retinal prints. If you don't like stay inside.

      My biggest objection to this isn't the technology itself, it's that companies, and police, have zero limits in how they will use any technology. Right now it's reading license plates and "will be used to solve crimes" but do you want to bet the company behind it isn't gathering data on EVERYONE for private use? Commingle that with cell data, credit cards,
      • Cool and while you're walking down the street we're also going to require you to give up your finger and retinal prints.

        Walking around on public infrastructure is the very definition of an afforded freedom. Driving a vehicle on the other hand is a regulated privilege.

        Your comparison is stupid on the face of it.

        • Wanna bet how the case will go when they can remote scan fingerprints as an example? "You're in public, get over it."

          Again my biggest problem is that companies AND police will not agree to any limits, except as they apply directly to use against themselves. We'd better figure that out now, and make the penalty for breaking the rules being unlimited liability with no ability to discharge debt, immediate bankruptcy of the corporation, and loss of the "corporate veil" privilege for all executives. That *mig
    • You shouldn't need "privacy in public" to be free of a police state that tracks your every move. That level of monitoring is reserved for convicted criminals out on parole/probation.

      • Nope. Driving is a regulated privilege not some right and the very reason police exist is because people are too fucking stupid to drive in an unregulated way.

        I support the police state on this. The police want to record my face when I walk around, fuck them, walking around is right afforded by freedom of movement. The police want to check my license plate? Absolutely. Do it daily. Stay on top of me and all the other fuckwits on the road driving a 1.5T death trap. Heck go one step further, implement automat

        • Just because you have a license doesn't mean they have to know your location at all times. Being "in public" using "public property" doesn't mean they need to (or should) track you!

      • "You shouldn't need "privacy in public" to be free of a police state that tracks your every move. That level of monitoring is reserved for convicted criminals out on parole/probation."

        Every bank you stroll by has cameras, every shop, every gas-station, every ATM, Bus, train, taxi. every public place and every Tesla driving by has a dozen of them.

    • Any discussion of ANPR is sure to bring out the bootlickers to suggest that if you don't want to be spied upon continually, you can simply refuse to participate in modern society.

    • There is also no privacy in private. Do you have your phone on you in your house? Somebody is tracking you. Do you use the web or apps in your bedroom? That's being tracked too.

    • Core problem here comes down to the same thing every time. The law recognizing the right for people to photograph or videotape you out in public is one thing (and sensible to protect photographer's/videographer's rights!). But the act of doing data collection and analysis on individuals based on identifying information obtained by the camera and THEN fed into databases, is very different.

      This is why people take issue with AI facial recognition systems, license plate readers, and other technologies along the

  • The news here is planting static number plate readers at an intersection, not catching criminals using a plate reader which is ancient news.

    • It is more like "Busy violating basic human rights, the police also manages to catch a handful of criminals"
      • It is more like "Busy violating basic human rights, the police also manages to catch a handful of criminals"

        Name one right which is being violated. You are in a public space. Anyone can see you and your car and record your license plate, then relay that information to someone else down the road. They can keep that information forever. They can share that information with whomever they want. They can track you without any justification. They can record everywhere you go every day.

        If, as the article states, tracking of a specific plate requires a justification, and who is doing the requesting is logged, and the i

        • >Anyone can see you and your car and record your license plate, then relay that information to someone else down the road. They can keep that information forever. They can share that information with whomever they want. They can track you without any justification. They can record everywhere you go every day.

          Yes and doing so is a violation of my privacy. Privacy isn't a legal right, it's a natural right. The line where the right to record in public ends and personal rights begin is around where if a hum
          • "Yes and doing so is a violation of my privacy. Privacy isn't a legal right, it's a natural right."

            Not in public, it isn't. You just don't like it.

            "So imagine a creepy guy standing in the street outside your house and taking a picture of your car every time you leave and return. Don't worry, he throws away old pictures, or at least assures you he does."

            These people are called private detectives, journalists, cheated wives, ...

            There's no law against it, you just don't like it.

            Do you have your name on the doo

            • "So imagine a creepy guy standing in the street outside your house and taking a picture of your car every time you leave and return. Don't worry, he throws away old pictures, or at least assures you he does."

              These people are called private detectives, journalists, cheated wives, ...

              There's no law against it, you just don't like it.

              In many jurisdictions they could be charged with stalking.

              • "In many jurisdictions they could be charged with stalking."

                No, stalking has to have unwanted contact.

                Catching photons bouncing off people in public with an electronic gadget is not that.
                Even if they don't like it.

                Photography is not a crime.

            • A private investigator has a license. Journalists have press credentials. A cheated wife hanging out in front of your house is either your wife, or a stalker. We do actually have legal controls to help protect privacy in this country, they're just crap. Still, they exist, so the idea of no expectation of privacy in public is false. It's just very, very limited.

              • "A private investigator has a license. Journalists have press credentials."

                LOL, do you know who prints the press credentials? Nobody, there's no such thing.

                You confuse that with invited shill journalists at an event.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

            Driving a vehicle isn't a right it's a privilege. That's why you have to take a test, get your picture taken and an identifiable number placed on your vehicle.

          • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            So imagine a creepy guy standing in the street outside your house and taking a picture of your car every time you leave and return.

            This isn't outside anybody's house, this is on a busy street corner, so the data is effectively anonymous. The guy only knows what vehicles passed through and when, not where they came from or where they're going or who's inside. You need more data to match a car with its driver.

            Remember, the police already know who owns which vehicles and where they park them at night because

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Increasing powers of surveillance by the state—without limit—is always justified by "catching criminals". That is precisely why the framers of the so-called "Bill of Rights" to U.S. Constitution felt it necessary to restrict it to the extent they could foresee it, though they could not possibly imagine how far and how deep technology would enable it.
        • You know what else would probably solve - or maybe even prevent! - at least three crimes in the San Jose area? Giving police carte blanche to walk into people's houses, unannounced and without requiring any pesky "probable cause" or other justification.

          Come on, Congress, let's get to it! Do you hate justice?

  • Standard in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raburton ( 1281780 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @07:58AM (#63191506) Homepage

    UK police have over 11,000 ANPR cameras making over 50 million reads a day (https://web.archive.org/web/20200118140655/https://www.police.uk/information-and-advice/automatic-number-plate-recognition/). They are regularly used to help investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. Haven't heard of any misuse, but then a) perhaps we wouldn't have and b) we tend to have much better laws around data use and misuse than the US. But the point is, while it may seem like a new things where it's being used, it's widely deployed, and I'm sure studied, elsewhere. The arguments for and against aren't new and there would be plenty for all parties to learn from other places where this has been standard practice for some time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      How many fascist police do you have selling firearms to white nationalists? Those white nationalists, incidentally, wanted to move the weapons to Bolsonaro supporters after training. That way the Bolsanaro supporters with weapons could conduct a terrorist attack on the legally elected government. I mean, they are even trying to hide their love of fascism... or love for a certain mustachioed individual... the name of the company is 88Tactical. I'll practically guarantee, if you were to investigate the membe
      • Why was the flower wearing a dress?

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

        FFS this country needs to purge the (literal) Nazis, White Nationalists, and so on, because they sure don't give a crap about policing.

        What...like all 12 of them?

        • There is no reason for you to pretend that Nazism is not currently enjoying a real comeback in multiple countries unless you are a Nazi, because nobody else wants to cover for Nazis.

          If you don't want people to think you're a Nazi, you should educate yourself before making statements about their prevalence. Alternatively, if you want people to know you're a Nazi, keep it up.

    • by ruddk ( 5153113 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @09:07AM (#63191642)

      There's a good case here.
      https://medium.com/matter/how-... [medium.com]

      JOHN AND LINDA CATT were driving into central London early one Sunday morning when they were stopped and searched by police officers. At the time of the stop, in July 2005, Linda was 45, and John, her father, was an 80-year-old with a shock of white hair. Officers told them they were being searched under the Terrorism Act. The Catts, who had no criminal convictions, were threatened with arrest if they refused to answer police questions.

      Although they didn’t know it at the time, minutes before they were stopped their van had been captured by the ANPR network, which had triggered an alert: “Of interest to Public Order Unit, Sussex police.”

      This is why most ANPR stops occur: on the basis of a single, non-specific alert among a flood of thousands issued each day. But the Catts weren’t terrorists or drug dealers or armed robbers. After they filed a complaint about the incident, they discovered what had made them of interest to law enforcement: they had attended a series of legal and peaceful protests against the EDO Corporation, an American arms manufacturer that used to supply weapons systems to the United States and Israel.

      Police had spotted their vehicle at protests and decided that it should be tracked, tagging them as “domestic extremists”

      Notes disclosed as a result of John Catt’s complaint showed exactly how extreme he had been: at one protest he had been wearing a T-shirt urging the United States to free Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old boy who had been captured and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay since 2002, making him the first child to be prosecuted by a military tribunal since the Second World War. Catt, the police file said, was “very quiet” and was “holding up a board with orange people on it”.

      In the eight years since they were stopped, Linda and John have tried to get their lawful activities removed from the police databases that track them. Along the way, the police watchdog has said that Sussex Police acted unlawfully by marking his vehicle, and some of the country’s most senior judges have ruled that the Metropolitan Police wrongly interfered with his right to a private life. But the police have fought back every step of the way, and the case is ongoing.

      • The is case isn't really about ANPR, though obviously that's the trigger that exposed it, but about different police failings/ surveillance overreach. And according to the summary the police were told they were in the wrong for this use of the ANPR system, by the watchdog. Things have obviously changed since, clearly not everyone who has ever been of the slightest interest to the police is flagged on ANPR, otherwise with 11k cameras, the police would be doing nothing else but chasing these flagged cars. So,

        • by Shimbo ( 100005 )

          2005 was a long time ago but he didn't finally win his case until 2019.

        • The is case isn't really about ANPR, though obviously that's the trigger that exposed it, but about different police failings/ surveillance overreach.

          No. It's explicitly about both things. They were targeted for abuse based on their political activity, and ANPR is how the targeting was used to harass them. Both things are their own kinds of problem. You would only be correct if they were not identified based on ANPR.

      • That hasn't anything to do with misusing ANPR, it's to do with misclassifying a peaceful couple as people of public interest. They would have had problems in literally any other enforcement activity, e.g. going to the police station for something, or while being pulled over for having a stoplight out etc.

  • This is the best thing they could come up with. 3 cars.

    • This is the best thing they could come up with. 3 cars.

      Many more might have already been "chopped up" or shipped out to overseas countries.

    • How many millions spent?

      Hopefully the city can recoup some of the cost of recovery by billing the insurance of the owners or the owners themselves.

    • by thomn8r ( 635504 )

      This is the best thing they could come up with. 3 cars.

      They would have been money ahead if the city just bought the victims new cars.

  • by dave314159259 ( 1107469 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @08:15AM (#63191520)

    The problem isn't using ANPR tech to find known stolen vehicles.

    The problem is saving ANPR data and not deleting it after (say) a month.
    The problem is selling ANPR data to *any* third party.
    The problem is using ANPR data outside of the bounds of a subpoena or warrant.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      First, a warrant or subpoena is not require to obtain ALPR data, for the following reasons:

      - Driving is a privilege not a right, and as such you are bound by whatever conditions the state wishes to place upon it, including the requirement to put a traceable license plate on the outside of your vehicle
      - The license plate is state property. It is not yours, and the state is allowed to track its own property however it likes
      - Your license plate number is also property of the state, and the state is allowed to

    • by Da_Big_G ( 3880 )

      And claiming it won't be shared, when the feds can just show up with a national security letter.

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        when the feds can just show up with a national security letter

        The feds have their own systems. So no having to maneuver around state and local prohibitions against such surveillance.

    • The problem is saving ANPR data at all. Any system which does that should be outlawed. They should be able to upload numbers to the ANPR systems with well-defined (and reasonable!) expiry dates, which cause an alert to be sent when the system sees that plate. Ideally the devices forget their list every time they are turned off, and have to fetch it again from a server when they power up.

  • by poptopdrop ( 6713596 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @09:21AM (#63191684)

    "Ba ba baba ba bada bada."

  • Out of how many?

    Seems like this is probably the same or fewer number of catches people searching and paying attention would make.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Three recovered based on cameras installed at one intersection. And only installed last year. As they install more cameras, things will only get better.

  • Not in my life, how about yours.
    • Quite a few on UK TV police programmes.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      There's not much benefit for society to recover bicycles from the scum that steal them only to return them to the scum that ride them.

      • My friends were shipping several dozen used bicycles to Africa. Unfortunately, they left them outside while they were loading the container, and somebody threw them in the back of a truck and stolen them. Police recovered them, but not until after they were ground up for scrap metal by the metal recycler... so my friends got to keep the $90 for the scrap metal. Pretty sure the bikes were worth more than that!
  • disable the vehicle (Score:4, Interesting)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Monday January 09, 2023 @10:49AM (#63192014)
    With more and more vehicles having wi-fi/gps/cellular...how long until the police just issue a command to disable the vehicle. Heck, Onstar can already do that.
    • You mean how long until government mandates that car manufacturers build cars with kill switches accessible by law enforcement? In some ways, I think that is a good idea... until the criminals inevitably gain access to the kill switches.
  • There's plenty of evidence it works. We've had it in the UK for years and it's been successful in not only with stolen cars but drug dealing/trafficking, allowing a licence plate to be linked to crime and then police when notified by the in-vehicle ANPR system that the vehicle is for example used in the dealing of drugs, stop it and interrupt the day of the criminals.
  • Yes, solved one crime against a big insurance company.
  • Nobody is arguing that life in a privacy-free Panopticon has zero benefits on the edges.

    It's that the balance is wildly unacceptable.

  • No mention of any oversight of the police or government use of this newly created database of care locations and traveling patterns. Great that the police officers have to log their reason. But what if the officer rights "because it was a pretty girl and I'd like to know where she goes", which has happened over and over again with drivers license databases accessible by police. Having a surveillance database like this will be very useful. How long before they sell it to palantir?
  • ALPRs have been around for a few years, and it still amazes me to see stories like this crop up. "You mean they can track us?!? Harumph!,: While officials can use them to enforce laws they can also be abused, such as long-term tracking. If I have a database of your license plate indexed and GPS information of where it was spotted, I can track your activities and who you associate with. The data also belongs to the public because public funds pay for the collectors, the back-end systems, and all the support.

    • It only tracks honest people. Thieves will quickly learn how to hid the license plate numbers of stolen cars!
  • 7000+ reported in 2021. Way to go!
  • What could possibly go wrong with monitoring everybody's movements?
    • I haven't tried to use an uber in a long time, but I am pretty sure they don't take cash...

      • Sure, but does your spouse have access to your Uber history? Of course, I had to start locking my phone after my ex went through it when I was sleeping and forwarded all email between me and my divorce attorney to herself.
  • No, the thieves will quickly learn the real new rule is "swap the plates when stealing cars in San Jose"!
  • Shouldn't they have already recovered vehicles from that?
    • Yes, they do, but those plates are not read by the police. Toll road plate readers are read by the private company that operates the toll road. I am a member of a class action lawsuit wherein the toll road operator was selling the movement data to advertisers without consent of the drivers.

      To some extent, it's the same case with the police. A private company operates the readers and how that data is treated is governed by the contract that that particular police department has signed with the vendor. Of
  • Around 2010, I recall passing by a Beverly Hills Police SUV cruiser that was stuck in traffic. I noticed that the laptop in the center was reading license plates and flashing signals to the officer. So, LPR were deployed an awfully long time ago, and what happens to the data is still a mystery because it depends on the contract each department signs.

    Data handling desperately needs some ground rules.
  • It's only a matter of time until auto manufacturers hardware a car's electronics to transmit the VIN number and lat/lon for anyone with a receiver to pick up.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...