Vast Surveillance Network Powered By Repo Men 352
v3rgEz writes "Even as some police departments curtail their use of license plate scanning technology over privacy concerns, private companies have been amassing a much larger, almost completely unregulated database that pulls in billions of scans a year, marking the exact time and location of millions of vehicles across America. The database, which is often offered to law enforcement for free, is collected by repo and towing companies eager to tap easy revenue, while the database companies then resell that data, often for as little as $25 for a plate's complete recorded history."
Wow! That was intense! (Score:5, Funny)
The life of a repo man is always intense.
Consumer debt. (Score:2)
I was talking with a bunch of folks recently, and I pointed out that consumer debt is relatively new. Sure there were layaway plans and credit with an individual store - your tab, but this huge industry that throws money out left and right to basically make us slaves.
I think many of our societies problems can go back to consumer debt: these invasions of privacy, college costs going through the roof, this treadmill of consumerism: cars, electronics, luxury goods.
All in all, things were a bit better when cr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before financing, people had large bank balances in this account type (I swear I amd not making this up) called 'Savings'. Banks actually paid people interest, rather than collecting it on all their debt. The banks borrowed from depositors for loans rather than borrowing from the Federal Reserve for nearly free.
The concept of this makes the mind reel. I may have to take out a loan and buy myself some aspirin.
Re:Consumer debt. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
With the low low interest rates you would be a fool not to refinance your house and take out a home equity loan to purchase said aspirin.
And with the even lower interest from the Fed, the bank would be a fool to loan you money to refinance your house, rather than just invest their zero percent interest borrowed money back into T-bills.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow! That was intense! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah. Let's go get sushi and not pay.
Re:Wow! That was intense! (Score:4, Funny)
Look at those assholes. Ordinary fucking people. I hate 'em.
Re: (Score:3)
Goddamn-dipshit-Rodriguez-gypsy-dildo-punks!
I've experienced it (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup, my SIL got picked off this way. Aparently there are cars that drive through neighborhood recording license plates, and when a license plate matches one that a repo man is looking for, the location is sent forward. She thought she was scot-free because she was living with her BF, but the car got towed anyway. Should have paid her bill...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably Google streetview cars. Google blanks out plates, obviously not without storing them numerically first.
Streetview cars don't travel the same routes often enough to be useful for this. They don't hit the same streets over and over in a short time period. These are tow truck operators and repo men running dedicated scanner hardware. Since they operate in the same general areas each day, they can hit the same locations on an ongoing basis, building up multiple datapoints for the same tags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should have paid her bill...
Or at least removed/covered the plate.
If these repo guys are just trolling parking lots looking for plate numbers, I'm betting they aren't going to bother with taking the time to hop out and read a VIN.
That would be so freakishly illegal ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait ...
Re:That would be so freakishly illegal ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Takking a photo in public should be freakishly illegal in a "modern, developed country"?
I thought we got up in arms when the government stopped us from photographing public buildings, and you want to make it possible to sue private citizens taking photos in public? What sort of statist, authoritarian nightmare constitutes "modern" in your world?
Re: (Score:2)
The taking a picture part isn't the problem. The problem happens when you collate all those pictures and index them such that it becomes more stalker like in nature.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The taking a picture part isn't the problem. The problem happens when you collate all those pictures and index them such that it becomes more stalker like in nature.
So you want to ban computers using information in ways you don't like? Good luck enforcing that.
Re: (Score:2)
The taking a picture part isn't the problem. The problem happens when you collate all those pictures and index them such that it becomes more stalker like in nature.
Also, I presume that none of these for-profit shutterbugs bothered to get the property owners to sign a release, thereby making the sale of said data de facto illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
We should start building our own database. Cameras pointed at public roads, with say a Raspberry Pi or similar low cost low power computer to do number plate recognition. Upload data to a central database. Obviously it would only be used to track public vehicles, such as local government utility vans, police cars, ambulances etc. Tracking private vehicles would be a gross violation of privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Takking a photo in public should be freakishly illegal in a "modern, developed country"?
Reductio ad absurdum - we're not talking about the practice of innocuous picture-taking, we're talking about onerous collection of personal data into a for-profit database.
And, FWIW, go try and take some public photos of, say, a courthouse, or better yet, a power station. [americablog.com] You'll discover the "public photography" double standard rather quickly, I assure you.
Also, here's [about.com] a short article regarding the legal implications of taking pictures in select public places.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to have the same rules for private citizens, for example it's legal for citizens to operate drones, companies not so much.
So, say I'm a private citizen on a public street, may I take a picture of a passing car? Can I sell that picture? Yes and Yes.
Can I not process that picture by doing an OCR scan of the license plate? Sure Why not?
Can I then assemble this license plate number with meta-data like where and when the picture was taken? Again, Sure.
Can I sell this information to somebody? I don't see why not. I can even do this a lot and create a database of many observations made on the public street and sell all the infor
Re: (Score:2)
Around here, corporations are private citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no one gets to control the flow of information they themselves introduced to the public. Sorry, that's not how things can or should or do work.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, I shouldn't be able to sell a picture taken in public because it has peoples' faces in them.
Unless you had them sign a model release, [wikipedia.org] then yea, you're not allowed to do that.
Profiting from someone elses likeness without giving them compensation (or at least getting their permission) is already illegal in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to observe what goes on in public and report on it.
Thanks.
What I don't want you to do is drive around an automated license plate reader and sell the data.
Explain the difference. In the latter case, I'm using tools to more efficiently observe what is going on in public, and reporting those observations to interested parties.
What's next, singing "Preserve us from the Wheel" in church?
Re: (Score:2)
The reference [unz.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why? According to which law?
Anti-stalking laws?
Need a better word than Orwell (Score:2)
The government can't afford to spy on us, but the corporations make money doing it. So they can afford to do it more.
Re: (Score:2)
And then the government can demand the data they don't have the resources to collect on their own.
So, take your pick ... is it an Orwellian world in which government sees and controls everything, or is it a Cyberpunk dystopia where the corporations do?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, it is not so much the government snooping that scares me as the private snooping does.
The government can't afford to spy on us, but the corporations make money doing it. So they can afford to do it more.
Being able to afford something never stopped governments.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, will be banned soon. (Score:2)
Politician runs for office in district A. To meet the residency requirements he claims he lives in his Mom's spare room in District A. License plate scans reveal his car lives in District B - in the parking lot for his mistress's condo.
Re: (Score:3)
Needs oversight (Score:3)
The major problems I see with this is there is no oversight. How accurate are the readers? How accurate are the databases? What recourse is there when they make a mistake? That sort of thing. Without oversight there is vast potential for abuse. The various companies involved need to be licensed and regulated. There needs to be PCI-like compliance for their databases and equipment.
There are lots of other questions here. Parking lots are by and large on private property. These drivers with the scanners are utilizing the private property for profit. I mean, I can't just set up a booth in Walmart's parking lot and start selling stuff. I would need their permission, for starters, and they would probably want a lease, proof of insurance, etc, etc.
My worry is that my car will be mistaken for another car on a repo list and towed somewhere. Then it becomes a legal nighmare getting it back, with no prospect for compensation or damages.
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness it is private but open to the public like a McDonalds. Yes someone has every right to take back something that doesn't belong to you. If you owe money the car is not YOURS.
They check the VIN number before towing due to lawsuits and the bank checks the license plates during processing work when they register the licensing fees back to them or the used car dealership it ends up on.
It sounds evil and messed up and scary if you are in a bad situation with someone trying to take what you think is
Re: (Score:3)
The major problems I see with this is there is no oversight. How accurate are the readers? How accurate are the databases? What recourse is there when they make a mistake? That sort of thing.
This is NOT a problem. The accuracy of the collection or the data is of no real concern, except to the one buying the information or the entity compiling it. If a company compiling this information makes a mistake, they will have an unhappy customer who will be less likely to come back and pay them again.
I don't see how any other party would be harmed by the inaccuracy of the data beyond the buyer and seller of it.
Re: (Score:2)
My worry is that my car will be mistaken for another car on a repo list and towed somewhere.
That would only happen if the tow driver made the same mistake as the scanner. When the scanner pops up the record for the repo and the plates don't match the driver will not take the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
The government shouldn't be allowed to say "Based on information provided by XYZ Tracking, your car was in the McDonalds parking lot when it was robbed so you must have committed the crime" without some validity checking.
Any decent defense lawyer would have that information ruled inadmissible if it was not verifiable by pictures. It would be easy to prove that scanners make mistakes.
The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
company executives meeting with other companies they haven't met before
Limo service. Good for covert meetings, shuffling mistresses around town, picking up cocaine for this weekends party. Been used for years.
Private vs. public... (Score:2)
I have no problem with a private individual or company doing this.
I have a big problem with the government, who has the ability to deprive me of my posessions, my freedom, and my life, being able to do this.
I wonder how else a private company can work with the government to get around restrictions placed on the government?
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with a private individual or company doing this.
I have a big problem with the government, who has the ability to deprive me of my posessions, my freedom, and my life, being able to do this.
I wonder how else a private company can work with the government to get around restrictions placed on the government?
It's not a private company, per se, but private organizations have always been the backbone of oppression in the US. In 1880, right after Reconstruction ended, South Carolina was 60% black. Then the KKK appeared and by 1930 SC was majority white. They didn't actually kill their black minority so it was more ethnic cleansing then genocide, but still. That only worked because the government was unwilling to squish them like they deserved.
Up north segregation typically had nothing to do with the government. Th
We Need Legal Countermeasures (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think we need regulations that prohibit this kind of data collection by private companies or individuals (the government is a different story). Collecting data nonintrusively shouldn't be illegal, because such laws would have all sorts of nasty side effects.
Instead of restrictive regulations, we need legislation that empowers people to protect themselves from this kind of thing. For example, maybe the requirement to display a large identifying string of characters on vehicles should be rethought. We don't require people to wear identifying signs around their necks every time they venture out in the public. License plates just make this kind of data collection too easy.
If our society is unwilling to get rid of license plates entirely, perhaps we could go to electronic ones. Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Right now the playing field isn't level. Instead of leveling it by taking rights away, we should give people the ability to easily and legally protect themselves.
Or perhaps some out-of-the-box thinking would yield practical countermeasures that are already legal. Of course, then the challenge might be keeping those countermeasures from being outlawed.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't require people to wear identifying signs around their necks every time they venture out in the public.
There aren't a million people who look and dress exactly the same every single second of every day. There is one person who look like you. There are about millions of gold Toyota Camrys.
Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Or, you could just invest in a car cover and put it on your car and over the license plate when you park.
Instead of leveling it by taking rights away, we should give people the ability to easily and legally protect themselves.
You mean like being able to obscure one's license plate when the vehicle isn't moving by, say, putting on a car cover? Oddly enough, that is
Myths (Score:2)
I will be tracked everywhere all the time with these scanners
Most scanners are mounted on vehicles like parking ticket authorities and tow trucks. The drive up and down the street scanning parked vehicles. There is no way every vehicle will be scanned all the time.
What about stationary cameras?
Where would these tow companies place these stationary cameras and get a lot of coverage? Sure they could try to place them on every light pole but I doubt local authorities would approve. Sure they can scan as people come and go from a lot but if you don't want to be scanned don't use the lot.
I will be tracked everywhere I go
No, your lice
BACK IN people BACK IN (Score:4, Interesting)
I know this is simply the stupidest, most trivial gripe anyone could make but I'm going to put it out just the same:
Back into parking spots ALWAYS. Do it for for safety. Do it for your car. Do it for convenience. Do it for 'the children.' And now, do it for privacy.
Many states do not require a license place in the front. I live in one of those states. For those who do, I'm sorry. Lobby for a change. Backing into your parking spots will reduce the likelihood that one of these scanners will record your car's location.
Backing in for safety is good to be sure the spot is clear when you enter it. You have to drive by the spot before backing in, so you know you aren't about to park in a spot occupied by a person, a motorcycle or one of those ridiculous smart cars. What's more, when you depart your parking spot, you will have the clearest possible view as you enter traffic because you don't have to back into a completely invisible and unknown situation. This also allows you to leave much more quickly since you can see where you are going. That's a great plus since quite often people are in a bigger hurry to leave than they are to arrive.
Backing in prevents people from hitting your car accidentally as you back out of parking spaces. Can you tell who is coming through that parking lane as you back out? I've seen too many cars hurt this way and it's tragic. And who has TIME to argue about it when you can just form a habit which prevents it all from happening in the first place?
Backing in means you get to leave going forward. It's not just safer, it's faster. The only potential inconvenience is access to one's trunk or rear storage area. That's probably the only exception to the rule I suppose. If you're planning to load something large, going in forward might be the best way, but it also leave you and your friends and family standing out in the parking lanes waiting for the next jerk-hole to come along and clip you needlessly.
And backing in means you have less risk of accidentally hurting a child. It's never a complete guarantee as kids just go everywhere, but can you say you did everything in your power if you aren't backing in and pulling out forward? It's when backing OUT kids are injured and killed more often. Those read-facing camera systems are really nice, especially for people who are unable to exercise full motion of their spine and neck. For for everyone else, there is no substitute for real eyes on the scene.
And now for privacy? Holy crap. Every day we learn there is yet another jerk-hole out there making money by recording and selling information about you. I wish for these people to die in a fire. They simply have no concept of what harm they are bringing to society. They just care about the dollars they can collect and spend on crap they don't need.
Seriously. Make a new habit if you don't do this already. BACK IN when parking. It's not hard. Just practice at it.
And here's the best mirror-hack of all time for backing in. Most cars these days have a passenger-side mirror and it's used to see cars which would otherwise be in a blind spot. But you don't need to see the sky with it -- just what's on the road. How about angling that mirror down a bit further so you can see more of the road. When backing into a parking spot, you will be able to see the lines of the parking spot on the other side and if you can still see the body panels of your car on that side, you can even achieve perfect alignment every time by checking if you are parallel to the line and how much room you have on the other side. There are thousand-dollar electronic sensors which serve this purpose but all anyone has to do is angle the passenger-side mirror down a little to get the same thing!!
Anyway. I hope someone actually reads this and gets something useful from it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had a few friends who always backed into parking spots... firemen, policemen, ex military, etc. who need to make a quick getaway.
However, it's much harder to back into a parking place and judge the sides and distance from the end than it is to pull in frontwise. It also takes more time. Much higher chance of hitting something. If you go in frontwise, it's much easier to back out of a space since there is much more room in the driveway to maneuver.
It's nice that you have mastered the skill but most peop
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed that concern in my diatribe.
1. It's a skill like any other. You can learn to develop it.
2. Use the mirror-hack. Angle your passenger-side mirror so you can just see your passenger-side panel and angle it down so you can just see the cars behind you on the road. You don't need to see the roofs of their cars or even the sky for that matter. Seeing what's on the road is far more important and educational. By seeing the ground on the passenger side relative to the passenger side panels, you can
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually? We're already well on our way.
Companies are collecting everything they possibly can about you, are under no regulations about doing so or what they do with it, and then are selling it for profit. School boards are tracking everything about students (with no chance to opt out) via private companies who then own that data and can do the same thing. Insurance companies are cross referencing everything about your life an
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people need to realize that when you are in public, no amount of legislation is going to change how trivial snapping a picture is.
Technology has changed and created new capabilities, but license plates have NEVER been private. Dont have to like it to accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty easy to avoid being tracked by this technology if you've chosen to live and work where you have more than one feasible way of getting around. It's tragic the amount of faith people have that freeways will forever remain unpriced and that gasoline will always be cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing marijuana is trivial, far more so than setting up giant license plate databases, but that hasn't stopped the state from trying to stomp the practice out. That pot growers go to jail yet stalkers walk free reflects society's ethics, not physical reality. And that reflection looks more and more like East Germany every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Or simply pay your bills or do not take out more than you can pay in case of a job loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology has changed and created new capabilities, but license plates have NEVER been private. Dont have to like it to accept it.
Fundamentally isn't there a difference between something done in public and how record of that information is used and collected? Theoretically the US government is not allowed to aggregate data and create dossiers on everyone even if it is done using data stored entirely in existing government databases.
Couldn't you stalk someone entirely in public and still go to jail for stalking? If you overhear a private radio conversation you can be liable for using information gained from the private conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly hope not.
My sister's car was damaged when an SUV rear-ended me as I was stopped at a traffic light. The driver of the SUV did stop, but refused to identify herself and provide insurance information. I could tell by the driver's actions that she was about to flee, and quickly noted her license plate number, and sure enough she fled while I pleaded with her to reconsider what she was about to do.
It took about a month longer than it should have, but eventually the machinery of justice caught up wi
We may create the "Orwellian" thing ... (Score:2)
Or are we all eventually going to end up in some "Orwellian 1984" kinda thing. i.e. Are we gonna have RFID's surgically plugged into us by police states .
You are missing the point, its not the government, its private individuals doing the data acquisition.
Move the camera from the car to glasses, and have the private individual walking through a crowd recording faces, for some commercial reason, rather than driving around recording license plates. Now add private individuals acting as "video vigilantes" recording anything they think suspicious or wrong.
An Orwellian thing may occur simply through our lack of courtesy, a lack of respect for someone else's
Re: (Score:3)
Of course that's how bad things would happen in America.
We have intentionally created a Federal government that is too weak to oppress anyone. This means that it is too weak to stop our neighbors from oppressing each-other, which in turn means that the Next American Dictatorship will not be based on official government powers, but rather it will be based on the government deciding not to stop ordinary Americans from oppressing each-other. It's already happened once. The rise of Jim Crow was entirely due to
Re: (Score:3)
The horror of 1984 is the oppressive government's literal mind control. Expertise in psychology was used to manipulate the population into ever-deepening submission. Surveillance was just supposedly how the government found dissidents... though I don't actually recall any instances of surveillance being successfully used. Rather, from what I remember of the book, a good old-fashioned informant was more successful.
Surveillance is just a widespread gathering of information. What we ultimately do with that inf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should have RFID incorporated into our license plates so that these scans can be done more efficiently and without optical recognition required.
Its called "tire pressure monitoring" not to be confused with "trusted platform module" and sports a much better range than any RFID I know of.
Re: (Score:2)
RF doesn't always need line of sight to be effective. Don't need the cars to park at least 3 feet apart to get a good glimpse of the tag from the side as driving by.
Re: (Score:2)
Does TPMS have a longer range than reflected light?
TPMS is an omnidirectional photon source which does not require direct unobstructed view of license plates. Photons emitted from TPMS have a wavelength of roughly three feet easily able to be observed thru walls and obstructions that would block any reflected optical frequency photons.
Collecting and processing those photons to track vehicles is a $10-$20 add-on to any computer. No fancy optics or CPU intensive image processing required.
Re:Shazbot! (Score:5, Insightful)
what else is new
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
Which is worse, the government spying on you or business, which then sells the info, perhaps to someone who could be interested in robbing you or kidnapping your child, and using this sort of information as a resource?
Re:Shazbot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
You don't have to sign a release to be recorded in public as you have no expectation of privacy. Unless a law is passed making it illegal use public images to track an individual or vehicle there is nothing to stop this sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the US would get their head out of their asses and realize there needs to be things like privacy laws which dictate what information companies can collect and for what purposes, this would not be an issue.
Right now in the US, anything which restricts corporations right to act like douchebags, and collect and sell your personal information is unrestricted.
And any republican or libertarian who tells you this is fine is a sack of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between someone using their camcorder to video tape you, and a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Not legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see them get charged with ~200,000,000 counts of stalking... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, legally. At some point such behavior by an actual human being would creep the shit out of you and fulfill the definition of stalking, which is definitely illegal in the US (specifics vary by state). If only such laws could be applied to automated cameras and databases...
If all you do if follow someone on public property you are not stalking them in a legal sense. Trespassing, vandalism, threats, ... must be present for there to be stalking. A protection order would not be written for simply following someone unless it was uncontested.
Re: (Score:2)
Not federally.
FTFY [victimsofcrime.org]
Re: (Score:3)
EVERY stalking law has some phrase saying that the stalker has to terrorize the stalkee.
Well pardon me for calling that hyperbole, since I'm pretty sure you haven't read every single stalking law put on the books in 30 years overnight.
Regardless, how is "terrorize" defined? Because if a state designates "following someone around with the intent to track their movements" as terrorizing, well, you're on the wrong side of the law.
Walking around on public property is not terrorizing. Even if you're watching one person all the time.
Public property is ... wait for it ... open to the public.
Yea, you've thrown that non sequitur out several times.
We're not talking about "walking around," we're talking about following someone. And if "following someone" falls
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the case celebs use against paparazzi.
I don't so mind being photographed (or my property automatically scanned) in public but what I do mind is people making a profit on it.
I want the data brokers and/or repo companies to cut me a check every-time a database with my information is used to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Paparazzi are intrusive. They get in people's faces and the constant photo flashes are annoying. There are also paparazzi who insist on asking questions (aka TMZ).This is far different than license place scans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
But, that is not what they are doing.
They are driving through parking lots taking pictures of license plates, then OCRing the images and storing the location and plate information in a database.
If you don't like someone taking a picture of your car, don't park your car in a public place where a picture can be taken of it. If you don't want someone taking a picture of your license plate, figure out a way to obscure it while parked.
Re: (Score:2)
I know... if you have nothing to hide...
TFA states that they drive around apartment complex parking lots and shopping centers. These are private property.
Also, I think it's illegal in some states to obscure your license plate.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I think it's illegal in some states to obscure your license plate.
As far as I know, it's illegal in every state to obscure your plate... while operating the vehicle on a public road.
When parked, not so much. Perhaps a James Bond-style rotating plate, or a cover that slides down over it when you shift into Park?
Re: (Score:2)
If it is illegal to obscure one's license plate, then using a car cover would be illegal. To the best of my knowledge, it is only illegal to obscure one's license plate while the vehicle is in motion. After, all, if you live in a location that only requires one license plate, it would then be illegal to back into a parking space.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK places like that are a kind of grey area. They're private places to which the public are [conditionally] admitted.
I think it's similar in the US, no? Mall security can request people to leave[1], and if they don't it's trespass. they have no intrinsic right to be there.
[1] there are exceptions to this. A policy of "No niggers, queers or pope-suckers" is not, generally, legally binding.
Re: (Score:2)
If your car is parked in a public place (i.e. the road), you can't cover up the license plate.
Private property (i.e. apartment block parking lot) it's ok.
I have no opinion about the "immoral or unethical" question...
Bad simile (Score:2)
A better simile is a number of people spread out all over the place who take pictures of everyone and sort them by face. No single person is being followed therefore no stalking. The big difference is that most of the time pictures are not being taken. There is no way to know where is person has been between when the pictures are taken. License plate scanners are not everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
By "this kind of thing", you mean using a camera in public, right? Is that really illegal in Europe?
In many countries, it is effectively illegal to take pictures that would compromise privacy of an individual in public. /. incredulity...
Here's a per-country summary [deviantart.net] in case you are actually interested in learning about this and aren't just spouting typical
Really there's only a right to take a picture in the US.
Re:Shazbot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
Yes, it is reasonable to say that you shouldn't expect privacy in a public setting, but this has historically been in the context of observation, not recording. The ubiquity and accessibility of modern recording devices completely alters the dynamic. Observation forgets, relinquishes and carries with it an element of humanity. Recording is cold, factual and unforgiving. This can be useful for some things (court proceedings, for example), but not everything; probably not most things.
No, you shouldn't expect privacy from individuals or the press. Yes, should be able to expect privacy from government and businesses who make recordings to be used against you.
Context is everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
Re: (Score:2)
what else is new
What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this
No need for you to agree to this. On a public street they are free to collect information. So scanning your license plate and recording the location and time can happen without your knowledge or consent. They can then sell this information to whomever they want. If you don't like it, stay home.
What I find amazing is there is a large segment of the population who will get up in arms over this kind of collection, dig out their pitchforks and storm the castle, but will willingly post GEO tagged photos onlin
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amazing is there is a large segment of the population who will get up in arms over this kind of collection, dig out their pitchforks and storm the castle, but will willingly post GEO tagged photos online to document their "privacy" protest activities. These same people will run Google maps, Wayze or other applications on their smartphone to navigate their way to the protest, then do the same to find someplace to eat, while cranking up the coupon application to find a deal on the sandwich they are hungry for. These folks don't think twice about their privacy in any other context.
You don't see the difference? Google Maps, Waze, etc. provide a useful service to the user in return for that information. Repo camera databases don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see the difference, I just don't think folks who get upset about data collection in PUBLIC have a right to complain. Given most of those mindless privacy advocates who didn't read the EULA when installing these applications on their smartphones generally don't understand how they just opted into providing data that is WAY more invasive than some guy in a truck scanning license plates which are in full public view as he drives down the public streets.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to recognize John's car parked out front of the office, and then (if asked) to say "I think he's here today, I saw his car out front in the public parking lot..."?
I think what you're calling for is a fundamental change to the constitution to recognize an intrinsic right to privacy in public.
Re: (Score:2)
The government. Definitely the government.
Last I checked, robbers and kidnappers weren't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizens homes without judicial review.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I checked, The Gubment isn't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizen's homes without Judicial Review.
Check again; [longwarjournal.org] Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.
Oh, I get it - you mean they haven't drone-struck (striked?) any American citizen on American soil! Well, technically, that is correct, although I recall it being discussed during the manhunt of Christopher Dorner, and in fact the President and Attorney General have already discussed the legality of such an action - they agree that it would be legal to murder US citizens without trial, on American soil. [huffingtonpost.com]
Which mean
Re: (Score:2)
. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
Wait? You actually believe this story?
You've seen one of these so called scanner-cars driving the parking lots?
There simply aren't enough repo men in business to warrant this, and those defaulting on car loans are well known to the banks, they could just go to the house the deadbeat lives in, where they work, or report the vehicle as stolen and let the police handle it.
I'm calling bs on the the entire thing, probably a ploy to drum up scanner sales. Pictures or it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
They don’t drive into parking lots – they put up cameras along freeways, bridges, and other high traffic areas. It can’t tell where you are parked but it can tell what neighborhood you are in.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, no. Go back and Reread TFA (for the first time)
Few notice the “spotter car” from Manny Sousa’s repo company as it scours Massachusetts parking lots,
Private companies do not put scanners in road right-of-ways.