License plate recognition system
- Thread starter Mandirigma
- Start date
- Status
geronimotwo
Member
agreed, however any plate could be entered into the system if so desired.
geronimotwo
Member
hmmm, hard to put this into words, but i guess it boils down to, if i feel a law were unconstitutional, and felt it were my right as an individual to assert the need for civil or uncivil disobediance as is our forefathers intention, then i would not want a system already in place that would immediatly identify my vehicle, and lead to my detention.
geronimotwo
Member
?????????
carpediem
Member
I don't know much about law enforcement. I do know a little about technology, particularly electronics and software.
This - arguably paranoid - is sort of what I envision.
Proliferation and refinement. Technology helps catch someone. Technology is lauded and implemented on a broader scale in vehicles. Amber alerts and fugitives - let's place this along border checkpoints and other strategic locations.... ad nauseum.
The problem with this system, sort of like the surveillance cameras in other areas, is the potential for abuse, and the temptation to broaden its scope. With enough locations, you could use this type of technology to track vehicles - useful perhaps for low-key tailing of sensitive suspects or what not.
I probably went a little overboard in what my post implies, even though what I said still stands. Bottom line: I generally respect law enforcement but I just don't have confidence that our 'leaders' know when to stop.
geronimotwo
Member
when george orwell wrote the novel 1984, the people of that time thought there was no possibility of it ever coming true. not from the aspect of technology, but from the aspect of losing one's privacy. today we may think of orwell's ideas as a government handbook, rather than as a far fetched novel. THAT is what scares me.
Very noble and principled. As I stated earlier however... a great many similarly high-minded citizens tend to feel a much greater kinship to their government, and desire to assist in the technological advancement of their police agencies, when their $60k SUV disappears from the Wal-Mart parking lot.
You want to avoid detention: lose your driver's license and SSN, and, most importantly,... follow the basic rules of society.
geronimotwo
Member
+1
isn't this why we have the constitution? as a foundation for our rules of society?
The system we are discussing is only marginally more advanced than the barcode scanning system used at your local grocery store. With all due respect, your broadband connection, telephone service, and satellite TV system has infinitely more potential for surveilance and tracking than this does.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
high school
"That whole anarchy thing in high school seems like so much better of an idea now... Every man for himself."
that why they don't let you vote in high school they bank on the majority maturing beyond this kinda thinking by 18
"That whole anarchy thing in high school seems like so much better of an idea now... Every man for himself."
that why they don't let you vote in high school they bank on the majority maturing beyond this kinda thinking by 18
GigaBuist
Member
LawDog, a moderator on this board if I'm not mistaken, and also a LEO in the good state of Texas wrote on this issue some time ago on his blog. Worth a read: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/05/disquietude-part-1.html
Summary: He doesn't like the idea.
At first blush I wasn't exactly opposed to the idea, but wasn't thrilled with it. After reading his views I changed my mind. I'm now pretty much aainst it. Granted, I'm pretty much a card-carrying member of the Tin-Foil-Hat Brigade, but it took the writing of LawDog to open my eyes up to the potential abuses of the system.
With regards to the cell phone issue:
Every cell-phone I've had has been able to handle multiple calls at one time. With recent developments in data transfer speeds in cell-phones you can push a good amount of software to a phone in no time, and I know that Verizon has pushed out firmware updates to phones to limit the functionality at times, specifically to disable the Bluetooth functionality of the Razr phone short after their release.
There's really no technological hurdle at this point to keep it from happening. The only thing you'd notice is your battery draining much faster than normal.
I read LawDog's blog, and it's interesting enough. The points he makes however are hardly awe inspiring.
Yes, there is potential for abuse, as in any law enforcement information system. Law enforcement officers are already privy to a phenomenal amount of information however. They don't need an automated system to run the cars in a gun shop parking lot or to tail a suspected cheating wife.
Once again... the system doesn't do anything that can't already be done manually by any LEO... it simply automates the process making it easier and more efficient for certain applications.
The hysteria around this sounds remarkably similar to that of uneducated persons harping on how infinitely more dangerous a high cap semi auto is than a bolt action mauser.
Yes, there is potential for abuse, as in any law enforcement information system. Law enforcement officers are already privy to a phenomenal amount of information however. They don't need an automated system to run the cars in a gun shop parking lot or to tail a suspected cheating wife.
Once again... the system doesn't do anything that can't already be done manually by any LEO... it simply automates the process making it easier and more efficient for certain applications.
The hysteria around this sounds remarkably similar to that of uneducated persons harping on how infinitely more dangerous a high cap semi auto is than a bolt action mauser.
carpediem
Member
Using your gun comparison, this is like comparing an MG42 to a Mauser. Both are equally safe in the right hands. Which would you rather have in the wrong hands?
Lethality and ease of rapid operation are two different things in this example, something the Antis don't differentiate between as well as not taking skill level into account.
thexrayboy
Member
The government stopped worrying about that fine line a long long time ago.
That is why this subject is making people upset at government. All by itself this is really just a minor thing, a minimal invasion of your right to go about your daily business without your actions being monitored at every level by big brother. If this were the only tool in the arsenal of privacy destruction it would indeed be just an annoyance. The problem is this is just one of many tools that big brother is using. Soon the government will be able to fine us for wasting too much toilet paper when we visit the porcelain throne....they will do it for the children and the environment.
kd7nqb
Member
The fear that this would EVER become a firearms issue is exactly the tinfoil hat stuff I hate. I see this as a very useful tool and it would spead up the recovery of stolen cars much faster.
Bigblock, Regarding the cell phone monitoring you say can't happen. It's happening right now. The gov't can indeed turn cell phones on and listen through the microphone. I'm not going to go into how this is done, but it is reality.
I also notice you don't mind being monitored. Are you a government employee? Frankly, I'm appalled by the decline of freedom I've witnessed in the United States since I was a young man. Perhaps you are young and don't remember what the country was like before Kennedy was president. I'm uncomfortable seeing how my fellow citizens are so willing to give up liberty for so-called security. This will not end well I think.
Bob
I also notice you don't mind being monitored. Are you a government employee? Frankly, I'm appalled by the decline of freedom I've witnessed in the United States since I was a young man. Perhaps you are young and don't remember what the country was like before Kennedy was president. I'm uncomfortable seeing how my fellow citizens are so willing to give up liberty for so-called security. This will not end well I think.
Bob
Thin Black Line
Member
You won't even be able to blink
http://tinyurl.com/yvq46c
BTW, the tinfoil hat will work if you pull it down over your eyes, but you will
bump into things all day long. Also, please don't drive.....
That's correct. People at that time didn't know Nazi Germany had used IBM
computer punch cards. 1984 was published in 1949. FA Hayek published
his first major work on man, the state, economics, and control in 1944 before
WWII had ended. Hayek wrote at a macro level and didn't get into the
technology end of things. Orwell was a creative writer and did.
Incorrect.
I can not run 1,500 license plates per minute, with a location log and photograph for the entire course of my shift and input each and everyone in a searchable database.
No officer can run, photograph, and input into a log 720,000 cars per shift.
The government is allowed to track suspects. It is not the business of the government to keep track of innocent citizens.
The NCIC/State CIC computer is supposed to be used as an investigative tool. We are supposed to run plates only on Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause.
Your morning commute does not make Reasonable Suspicion criteria.
Yes, I know that some officers run plates because they can. I fully understand that some officers will make a run through a parking lot, or down a street and run every plate within eyesight.
It is bushwa, and it is a violation of the Terms Of Use of the NCIC system, but I can (barely) tolerate it because the damage is limited by the human factor: an officer can only input so many plates during a shift.
This system removes that human limitation.
I don't care if you catch ten 10-99 hits on a shift.
Those ten arrests are not worth violating the privacy of the other 719,990 innocent citizens the camera ran on that shift.
LawDog
Reasonable suspicion / probable cause is not requisite criteria for non-specified determination. An automated information scanning system, one which does not require you to enter specific identifying information and does not return specific identifying information back to you, except under explicit criteria, does not legally qualify as an NCIC search in that no one actually performs a specific search or sees any information. This is particularly the case if the system is limited to use in a vehicle theft recovery capacity.
It is all well and good to dwell on the hypothetical abuse potential of a system such as this, but answer me this:
Even if our agencies were to authorize the collection of all this information, given the fact that our criminal investigations divisions are taxed to the limit as it were, what exactly would you, I, or any other person with access to this system do with a log of the location of 720,000 vehicles per shift???
It is all well and good to dwell on the hypothetical abuse potential of a system such as this, but answer me this:
Even if our agencies were to authorize the collection of all this information, given the fact that our criminal investigations divisions are taxed to the limit as it were, what exactly would you, I, or any other person with access to this system do with a log of the location of 720,000 vehicles per shift???
See, that's the thing. Once you buy the cameras and the software -- bundled together by the companies at a nice discount -- the only other things you need are a data storage unit, and a geek to write a search program.
The potential power of this system far outstrips any cost. All you have to do is go to a board and tell them that the system costs only a touch more than the Dash-Cam set-up that's already standard equipment, with the additional perk of being able to pin-point damned near every vehicle in your jurisdiction once a shift. Three times a day -- minimum -- your department will know where 90% to 99% of the vehicles in their patrol area are located.
Wrong question. You should be asking, "What wouldn't be done?"
Enter a search by name, and the system will detail each and every time a vehicle registered to that name was within scanning distance of a cruiser from that time of check to time of program inception.
Enter a search by location, and the system will detail every vehicle that passed within scanning distance of any cruiser located near that location.
Enter a search by date/time, and the system will detail the locations where every car within scanning distance of an equipped cruiser is at that time.
Oh, I am sure that the number of cases cleared will skyrocket. That doesn't make it right.
If the government were to mandate that each and every person in the United States enter their fingerprints into AFIS, the crime clearance rate would skyrocket -- but this is the United States and our citizens have a right to privacy, and a right not to be included on any lists.
If the government were to mandate that each and every person in the United States have their DNA logged into a national database, the crime clearance rate wold skyrocket -- but, again, this is the United States and the Gov't needs to bugger off until they can articulate a reason for investigating a citizen.
So, until such time as I am investigated for a crime -- as long as I am an innocent private citizen -- where, when and how many times I drive my car is none of the Governments business.
LawDog
I still don't understand what would be done.
I've heard the assertions, and I understand what you are saying... with all due respect. My question is WHY??? To what end??? What would the purpose be in doing this??? I mean... you could hypothetically identify the precise number of three legged beagles on any given beat on any given day... but why???
What isn't right? That 3000 license plates were lawfully run by a machine without ever being viewed by a human eye and the result was the recovery of a stolen vehicle? That isn't right? I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that.
The license recognition system isn't a mandate by "the Government" that anyone subject themself to being placed upon any list, and given the fact that it is an automated and non-specified system, it is no more an invavsion of anyone's right to privacy than a state DMV datatbase is.
And by the way... you understand that your rejection of automated information processing such as that discussed creates a situation whereby every time you run someone through AFIS, you are violating your own principle of investigation without probable cause or reasonable suspicion for millions of American citizens right??
If "the Government" were to proactively mandate that each and every male citizen be incarcerated from the time they were 15 until the time they were 75 crime would hypothetically all but cease to exist. Nothing resembling either proposal has been made however, and neither even remotely resembles the license plate recognition system.
As a LEO, I think you understand what constitutes "an investigation", and I think that you understand that a machine performing an automated processing of your license plate information, among tens of thousands of other identical processes, without specific propmpting, and without anyone's specific knowledge, does not meet that criteria. I am assuming that you have run someone through AFIS during your career? I am assuming you would not have described yourself as having "investigated millions of suspects" each time you did so?
As a LEO, I suspect that you know exactly how deeply "the Government" cares about where, when, and how often you drive your car.
Last edited:
- Status
