Mobil plate scanner

As with all technology, using it for the worst always seems to be the case.

This is the good part:

The bad parts of it you can only imagine.

I have a right to drive around in a stolen car and not be bothered by some nosy policeman trying to do his job.

Also using my DNA to convict me of murder or rape is a violation of my rights. After all, it is my DNA, not theirs.

How is this technology different from Google Goggles?

Google Goggles lets you use pictures taken with your mobile phone to search the web. It's ideal for things that aren't easy to describe in words. There's no need to type or speak your query - all you have to do is open the app, snap a picture, and wait for your search results.

Google Goggles works better with certain types of queries. Try taking pictures of books & DVDs, landmarks, logos, contact info, artwork, businesses, products, barcodes, or text. Currently, it's not so good when taking pictures of animals, plants, cars, furniture, or apparel.

The police in Nassau County, New York (a suburb of New York City) have had this technology for years. About 12 percent of the cars on the road here (and probably where you are) are unregistered and uninsured. Is that not shocking?

A large number of drivers surrounding your car are not complying with the law. This is a tool to get them off the road before they kill or maim you!

dobs108

The court case law is already there. You have no expectation of privacy when it comes to your license plates. This is why police can run your plates anytime they want for any or no reason at all. All this old technology does is allow them to do it insanely faster than if the officer had to type the plate in manually or call it in on the radio. Law enforcement has used this tool for awhile now and it is effective for locating stolen cars/plates. Plate scanners have been used on our nations ports of entry for awhile now. Sky Harbor Airport takes photos of your plates every time you park in one of their lots.

it's been here imaryland, but most recently i've seen it on a plain white sub-compact..

Definately not the usual law enforcement vehicle. I should have taken a piture! I wonder who it could be!

It is non-invasive (passive), and it will allow the Police to catch people they would have probably driven right by.

There are too many criminals in the world. This technology will keep law breakers off the road. In addition to stolen vehicles they should target expired licenses, uninsured motorists, and other law breakers. Uninsured motorists should be stopped, jailed, and their cars impounded.

It would be a good idea to have these cameras put in static locations like the red light cameras. Once a perp drove through and was identified, a dispatch alert could be given to all cars in the area.

Vehicles equipped with plate scanners are used to locate cars with unpaid parking tickets and marked for booting. The "Boot Patrol" has increased the District's rate of collections on parking tickets and increased boot fees to more than pay for the technology.

We just got it in my town about a year ago--I'll all for using technology to catch the bad guys. Our local PD would cruise the neighborhood anyways; this technology now gives them an extra set of eyes.

Cops get so distracted from catching criminals. I am for any technology that takes the small tasks away that help them catch a drug dealer or something else.

Pictures of license plates to help cops - I'm for it. Don't want your plate tracked? Then take it off your car, and deal with a different problem.

As far as I know, Long Beach, NY was the first municipality in New York to utilize this technology.

As the officers drive during patrol the plate reader scans the plates of parked and driven cars on either side of the police vehicle. If a number in the national database gets a hit they can stop and check further. It does not discriminate the State of origin so the number may be linked to a license plate for Mississippi but a New York plate of the same number will show a hit. The officer can immediately disregard. If a plate comes up and there may be cause to examine the issue further the officer will often contact the desk officer to do a more complete check to determine if the plate reader was accurate.

The plate reader works against a database of plate details so it will only search for those plates (and related vehicles) already posted as being sought.

One of the first local hits was for a car used in a bank robbery. It was parked outside of a local diner. The officers waited and watched and when occupants left a diner and got into the car they were stopped. The loot was still in the trunk.

Rob

Yeah, privacy is a sticky issue. The so-called right to privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights. It’s an unenumerated right invoked by interpreting the joint intent of several amendments. In other words, it refers to your right to live your life relatively free from government intrusion.

It seems whenever the privacy issue arises, it is nearly always framed within the context of the public good. The mistake, however, is to take a pro and con view of the issue so that one side suffers for the sake of the other. See what I’m getting at? It’s about not falling into the trap of something like a loaded question, like for instance, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” As soon as you take a stance solely on one side of the issue as it is usually framed then you are instantly condemned.

You have to admit that the “eyes” are only one component of that system. I would think a better way is to focus on the immense power of the information gathered and stored in a database and to lobby for safeguards on the use and maintenance of that information. For instance, are there measures to review and correct erroneous information in that database?

Oh yes, but what about criminal activity? My answer would be that some measure of that is the price of living in a free society, not a perfect society (utopia) but a functioning version of the next best thing.

If you are in a public place, on a public road, you have no expectation of privacy.
If challenged again, it will be upheld again.

Have you any experience with search & seizure?

It's been around quite a while, and there is a good body of court decisions on the subject. My suggestion is to read up on the subject, and you will not look so foolish in the future.

In Katz vs US (1967) it was determined that the 4th protected people, not places.

However, it seems a lot today tends to center around the definitions of reasonable and unreasonable. You can take it as far as possible if you can argue that a particular action is reasonable. Seems like a sliding scale, huh?

...has been using these things the last couple of years with great success.

If we could get drivers who do not belong behind the wheel of the car, then great. I have nothing to hide, but many others do, so I'm all for it.

I love this tool for the police. IMHO police will now have a tool that enables them to potentially apprehend some very dangerous people that might have
slipped by unnoticed by visual observation. If the plate is on the list the computer will alert the PO that the car should be stopped. As a libertarian I do not see how the officer in the car can abuse this. As a matter of fact it might make an officer less likely to be observant because of reliance on the technology.

It's been discussed in my area too. I've got no real problem with the scanning and searching for warrants, etc. based on the plate
BUT
What about saving that data for future use.....and what future use would be allowed....and what uses would be prohibited.....and what would the penalty be if an insider used that data for a prohibited purpose ????

This is a LOT too much like big brother for me. It, in effect, allows "them" to build a data base of everywhere you are, based on where your car is. There is already talk of doing something similar with cell phone tracking.

BAD precident; VERY slippery slope; I did not elect my government to keep track of my every movement.

NOW...having said all that, what does this have to do with GPS and POI's ???
I'm not sure this discussion would be allowed to continue if the owners were not otherwise occupied.

Bud, this is in the 'Open Talk' forum...

Let's not be getting into name calling here, please.

This subject is on the ragged edge of a political arguement just by it's very nature......and calling other users foolish is EXACTLY why political and religious discussions are not allowed.

While this is not about POIs directly, it has possibilities for GPS units if it were possible to isolate places that had such devices. A stretch, I agree, but what do discussions about the constitutionality of safety cameras have to do with a POI file on safety cameras.

Are you one of those who think that the government should have been able to 'connect the dots" on the 9/11 terrorists?

Or, do you think that the government should not be doing surveillance on possible wrong-doers?

Or, is it just your movements that you do not want to be recorded? (slippery slope?)

Those questions are inflamatory and you probably know that. Do YOU think that "big brother" should be watching your every move ???

I think that the government serves ME and not the other way around.

I also think that "the government" should have good reasons for keeping track of the activities of any individual......and "just because they might break a law in the future" is not a good reason.

Data bases of personal information are proving to be dangerous every day and for various reasons; more data just means more danger. That must be balanced against the potential good. Lately things seem to be getting out of balance.

Your reaction is very typical for some one having no clue how the technology is used/implemented. You tend to go for very long walks off short piers without even doing a modicum of investigation.

These units have no sense of position and for the most part they aren't even aware of the time or date. They read an image, compare it to a preloaded database and report a match usually within a few seconds of the initial reading. No data or images are stored from these mobile units, nor is any transmitted to a central database.

What part of "no expectation of privacy for a motor vehicle" are you having a problem with? Is it the N or the O in NO?

That being said, the plate readers that do store images are those typically used for toll booths and many parking facilities. Toll booths to document those that do not remit their toll, parking facilities to verify entry/exit times for charges. Many of the plate readers in use at parking garages are owned and maintained by private companies. They can do with the data collected as they see fit. You used their facility, they collected your arrival and departure times. That's no different than a credit card transaction. If you have a problem with their collection of data regarding your car, there is always public transit. I believe they all accept cash so there is no record of a transaction, but they may have installed security monitors recording what is happening in and around the vehicle. You just can't win can you?

I did not intend for the questions to be taken as inflamatory - I certainly did not mean them to be such. I would assume that you support the action by the government to keep us safe from terrorists and wonder how one can be for tactics against someone else and feel that those tactics should not apply to all citizens.

Personally I do not feel that the government does not serve, not should it serve, ME. The government exists to serve US - the common good. What that means to me is that WE have to conform to laws which collectively protect US.

Recall that the 9/11 terrorists did not break any laws (that I know of) until 9/11. But, looking back, the government did have "good reason" to gather data on these individuals but didn't.

On the issue of databases, I agree that there is a potential for misuse. Still, when you purchase something with your credit card, enterprises can make a valid argument that they COULD use such information to better serve you. Whether they do that and, in addition, act to protect the information they have needs to be regulated.

Who can do that? Well, it is the government, isn't it. Any group that passes laws for some group of citizens is part of what we call the government.

Laws should be applied equally.

Technology marches on. Rather than call your intelligence and motives into question I will just point out that the report I read described in some detail how and why the images would be saved.....specifically along with time and location information......so that it they later became aware of a crime that occurred in that area, they could look and see whose cars were parked close by.

Your outright insults are NOT appreciated and once again proves beyond a doubt why arguements are discouraged here.

You do the owners a BIG dis-service by abusing the lattitude you have been given in their absence.

We have seen the enemy......and it is US.

ka1167
Your a trip dude, so it's your way or the highway huh, even in a open talk node? Just don't click the link if you don't like it.. This conversation is about as political as deciding what brand of toilet paper to wipe with. chill dude.

Now back to the subject on hand.

My feeling is, if you have something to hide then you would be upset by plate scanning. If you don't then your plate just rolls by and nothing is flagged or stored. Although all the data is already stored bt the DMV anyway.

If the cameras become static we can sure make POI files for them.

I work for a company that develops hardware and software for ALPR. You have nothing to worry about unless you have a warrant, stolen car, or on the FBI list. there are other lists out there like parking tickets and expired insurance. there is nothing to challenge in court. the system alert the officer with a alert tone that a suspect vehicle crossed the camera. the officer then stops the suspect and verify with dispatch that the suspect is a legitimate hit. then off to jail and the community is safer.

http://www.cobantech.com/www/ALPR.html

Sounds like a good idea, as long as its not turned into a mobile speeding camera. Yes I realize its on a police car and if your speeding in front of him you have a good chance to get a ticket, but its not automated.

Don't think it's intrusive. Same category as the radar gun.

Except for the speed of accessing the information, I don't see how this is any different than the standard plate check. Police used to call in license plate numbers and ask for outstanding violations, then they moved on to typing a plate number into a dummy terminal in their car. Now all of that is done automatically.

The biggest problem I see is for people with outstanding tickets or warrants. They used to be able to drive anonymously without significant concern for being caught. These types of devices reduce their anonymity.

Eventually these cameras will be everywhere, and used as toll road devices. Tracked and traced.

We're from the government, and we are here to help you... BWAhahahah

There are fixed plate scanners installed at the Ohio Turnpike tollbooths.
Supposedly to catch felons and other lawbreakers.

I'm all for catching bad guys, but this walks a thin line. I"m not sure if this is 'unreasonable' searching or not. What used to be unthinkable government meddling is now commonplace.

I don't buy the argument that goes "if you're not breaking the law you don't have to worry about it". We have been giving away our rights for a long time.

If you vehicle was stolen and they recovered it because of the mobil plate scanner, then you would probable think differently about them. I think they help.

The people who think this is perfectly OK are short sighted.

I have no problem with doing the scan and searching a database to match people who are PRESENTLY WANTED FOR PRIOR CRIMES. That is one thing. The people already have "allegedly" violated an existing law.

The problem comes in when the location and time-stamped scan data is SAVED for future use. That is not in any way proper if the data is saved for more than a few days......say a month. After that, it is just Big Brother collecting data about ***YOU*** that might be used in the future in all kinds of ways; most of them not nice and not legal by today's standards.

History is repleat with examples of government gone bad and one of the first things they do is round up as much of the "opposition" as they can find. A record of your daily movements would make that MUCH easier.

Can't happen here ?? The Jews in Germany though that too. It would have made McCarthy and Hoover's communist hunt much easier too.

I assume that you have communicated with the various cellphone companies registering your objections to the history they have on who you called, when the call was made, how long it lasted, perhaps which cell tower picked up the signal, etc.

No. They are not a government agency. If/when they share that information in bulk form with the government, then you bet I'll yell.....long and loud.

At the moment, they still need a warrant to get it.
The last Administration wasn't able to completely trash EVERY personal freedom law that was in place.....even though they sure tried.

I guess it doesn't bother you that there are agencies "sniffing the airwaves" and recording wireless transmissions from every source? They are not all US agencies either. You would be absolutely flabbergasted at what a satellite can "hear."

It does a little but not much you can do about that.

I AM kind of careful about what I say on any phone conversation because it likely gets "out of the wires" somewhere in it's path. And I generally have "nothing to hide" anyway.

Building a useful database out of something like that would be a HUMONGEOUS undertaking; probably not practical.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin

A few different paraphase's of the above statement:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Like the stated driver license I don't believe the tag for your vehicle physically belongs to you. They are both property of the state that issued the item. For this reason the state can and does take a license from individuals just like they can take the tag off your vehicle for violations. I may be wrong and this may vary from state to state. But as far as cameras to help the good guys against the bad guys I'm all for it.