
We know where you’ve been: Ars acquires 4.6M license plate scans - jchrisa
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/we-know-where-youve-been-ars-acquires-4-6m-license-plate-scans-from-the-cops/
======
eck
1\. Alice installs app on smartphone. Alice puts smartphone in cradle on
dashboard. Smartphone captures license plates Alice drives by on way to work.
Alice drives by Bob.

2\. Carol goes to website. Carol enters Bob's license plate number. Website
says, "25 hits found. Enter credit card number to see times and locations".
Carol enters credit card. Carol finds Bob.

3\. Alice gets some of Carol's money, since she took the photos.

Why is that not a thing yet? License plate reading, unlike, say, tapping
undersea fiber, is not something you need either a government's resources or a
government's ability to skirt the law to do. This is easy stuff.

~~~
orik
The value proposition for the user is very weak - too weak to get people to
spy on each other.

What are the odds that I'm going to get a payout? That someone out there is
interested and willing to pay for one of the license plates I've seen?
Probably very low. Do I really want to waste my smartphone battery doing this?
I'd rather have maps and music on.

~~~
mc32
Tie it in to law enforcement, get paid for detecting someone driving a vehicle
with a warrant against their number plates.

~~~
GFischer
Insurance companies too.

------
EA
Been flying a drone over landfills for a year now. I'm taking high resolution
photographs of all the address labels I can find. Wrote a script to do OCR on
the photographs and then export that into an Access Database. Been mailing out
flyers to positives asking folks to do better recycling.

~~~
akerl_
Do you check for your own flyers in landfills?

~~~
hamburglar
Ooh, and he can send another one that says "second notice" (or third, etc)
without actually needing to store data on each recipient. :P

------
cmsmith
It seems to me that we need the legal system to recognize computer-processed
'big data' as what it is, which is a totally new kind of information that
doesn't fit neatly into our existing privacy framework. I think it's good that
this technology exists (especially if my car were to be stolen), but I don't
see how it would be harmful to the public interest to require police to get a
warrant before looking me up.

Of course there are edge cases, where it's hard to draw the line between
automated and semi-automated data collection, but that's why we have judges.
However, it is troubling that this new technology is hitting its stride during
a time which is not great for privacy rights in general.

~~~
iak8god
> I think it's good that this technology exists (especially if my car were to
> be stolen), but I don't see how it would be harmful to the public interest
> to require police to get a warrant before looking me up.

The most justified uses for this seem to be those where your car is stolen, or
suspected to be involved in a crime, or otherwise of interest for an ongoing
investigation. Since there's no reason to store this data indefinitely for any
of those uses, it seems like erasing non-matches within 24 hours or so would
be a good way to address many of the privacy concerns. On the other hand, if
the goal is now to collect as much data as possible about everyone just in
case it turns out to be useful later, then things seem to be going according
to plan.

~~~
kbenson
Some crimes aren't even discovered for weeks or months afterwards. For
example, a dumped body. There's definitely a trade-off, 24 hours seems too low
to me, multiple months too long. 15 to 30 days sounds about right.

~~~
snowwrestler
The utility for solving crime is, I think, the wrong metric for deciding what
technology police should be allowed to use.

Murders would be a lot easier to solve if every person was forced to wear a
tracker that reported their location to the police at all times--but we would
not stand for such a thing. Why should we accept a lower standard of privacy
just because we're driving?

~~~
kbenson
Because like everything there's a trade-off and it deserves to be carefully
examined. I value my privacy, but that doesn't mean it's beyond reproach. If,
and I under no illusions as to it being likely, we could reduce certain types
of crime by storing this data and making it accessible with a warrant for a
specific time frame until it's removed (which is the context this is under, a
warrant was specifically mentioned up-thread), then it's worth having that
_discussion_.

~~~
snowwrestler
If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading?

This thread so far has been entirely about what's the "right amount" of crime
to prevent. But if you ask the police how much crime they should prevent and
solve, the answer will be "all of it." That's their mission, after all.

The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30
days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever"
will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion?

If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So
what is the counterbalance?

There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs.
What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here
on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.

~~~
kbenson
> If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading?

Privacy. That's what this comment thread was about. The privacy implications
of storing this data (csmith). Then, when it would be justified to access it
if it IS stored for some reason, for what crimes, and how long it would last
to address privacy concerns (iak8god). Then I chimed in with some reasoning as
to why a somewhat longer retention period might be warranted, and _why_. Is it
unclear there somewhere exactly what we're discussing?

> The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30
> days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever"
> will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion?

Since when is a discussion about one side saying what they want and then it's
over? In an effort to solve more crimes, the police would undoubtedly want a
lot of access to data that is kept for a long time. But the other side, the
public whose information this is gets a say as well. I, for my part, would
argue that _if this information is even allowed to be gathered_ , that if
police want access to it there should be strict controls and conditions.

> There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their
> jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of
> people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.

There _is_ an answer, or more accurately, _many answers_. Civil liberties,
preventing corruption, privacy, etc. There's a reason police can't detain you
indefinitely without charges, why they can't enter your home without cause,
why they can't seize your property without cause (and of course, there are
exceptions to these which people take offense to, often rightly). Those all
make the job of the police harder, but we've tried to strike a balance. It
shifts back and forth over time.

> If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost.
> So what is the counterbalance?

What, so we don't talk about it? It's not okay to have the conversation
because you think the other argument isn't obvious enough? I'm not really sure
your point, because to my eyes, this thread is _all about_ balance. It feels
like you're just trying to stifle discussion.

------
midnightclubbed
The only good thing to come out of this story is that Ars was able to do a
public records request and get access to the data. Having the data available
to anyone who wants it opens up enough privacy concerns and potential abuse
outside of the 'good guys' that hopefully someone in the city realises it
should stop spying on it's citizens.

Unfortunately the fix will likely be to continue the surveillance and to bar
public access to the data.

------
gregors
Oakland PD ALPR data interactive map
[https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1dEEIyx...](https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1dEEIyxvxaN4upYLz835XnfO-
fC1ZVy86AY3wz7zd#map:id=3)

raw data
[https://www.eff.org/files/2015/01/20/oakland_pd_alpr.csv](https://www.eff.org/files/2015/01/20/oakland_pd_alpr.csv)

found here [http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2015/01/what-you-can-
le...](http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2015/01/what-you-can-learn-from-
oaklands-raw-alpr-data-2594762.html)

------
danso
This is great that the Oakland PD acquiesced to the request...it appears old
Excel spreadsheets is a common way for the camera-tech contractors to store
and disseminate the information. A couple years ago, MuckRock made a request
for Boston PD's records, and received one spreadsheet (in error) that had
65,536 records: [https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2013/dec/15/boston-
po...](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2013/dec/15/boston-police-close-
alpr-program/)

------
lotsofmangos
_“If anyone can get this information, that’s getting into Big Brother,” he
told Ars. “If I was trying to look at what my spouse is doing, [I could]. To
me, that is something that is kind of scary. Why do they allow people to
release this without a law enforcement reason? Searching it or accessing the
information should require a warrant.”_

The state collecting this info in the first place is a parallel with Big
Brother. The state handing out the data to anyone that asks is not.

~~~
EGreg
Agree. Data is going to be collected anyway. If it's going to help anyone,
perhaps it should help everyone. To level the playing field.

I am all for more transparency when it comes to altercations with cops for
instance. Body camera footage!!

------
will_brown
I am all for privacy, but...it is not a reasonable expectation of privacy that
your car and/or license plate will not be photographed while on the road (at
least according to US law).

There is an entire body of law regarding _reasonable expectation of privacy_
vis-a-vis 4th Amendment search and seizure. If nothing else, even if one does
not personally agree with the jurisprudence, then they might find it
informative to know what the police may or may not search/seize without a
warrant, probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion.

~~~
a3n
It's a different thing entirely when the government has data, particularly
when that data traces your life.

The guy standing on the corner waving a "We buy gold" sign seeing my car/plate
is unlikely to be able to do anything with that data. But the government
recording my whereabouts can draw me into any sort of investigation they like,
based on correlated but not necessarily cause-related data. It's very
different.

At the least, the government is our servant, not our adversary, and we're
supposed to be able to limit and direct what they do. Just because the _can_
do something does not automatically give them the right, particularly if we've
told them they can't.

Unfortunately they _do_ see themselves as our adversary, and so the question
of whether we actually have given them the right to do something is often
arguable.

------
hyperliner
And this, my friends, is where our liberty died:

“Doesn’t bother me personally,” said Jon Kaufman, an Oakland resident. _“I
have nothing to hide.”_

------
ProAm
People should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in society and this
seems to go directly against the grain of that belief.

~~~
Shivetya
Since cars do not have rights, nor do the plates, the reasoning is they are
not violating your personal privacy. Courts and Police have so twisted the law
as to deprive our rights by stripping our association with our property. Sadly
they can simply initiate forfeiture against property still protected by the
law.

There hasn't been sufficient push back to stop this erosion. Worse there isn't
sufficient push back against government agencies holding back information
which they are bound by law to surrender.

~~~
pc86
> Since cars do not have rights, nor do the plates, the reasoning is they are
> not violating your personal privacy.

Is that really the justification, though? The only justification I've heard is
that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when driving down a public
road. It has nothing to do with you v. your property or the fact that your
license plate does not have constitutional rights.

The courts have agreed that you can't mindlessly swap out a police officer for
a computer, save all the data and keep going as you were, but that doesn't
change the fact that you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy _in
public_.

------
danielharan
An ideal tool for stalkers.

I am sympathetic that this data could be useful for law enforcement - however
this data must not be released wholesale to the public and there should be
limits to how long it is stored.

~~~
mytochar
This was /exactly/ the situation that I was going to write a thought about,
though I replaced stalkers with abusive ex-relationship partners for a more
visible display of concern (and admittedly an appeal to more extreme
possibility)

------
ZanyProgrammer
Did the article ever mention if Ars is making this data public? I couldn't
find a reference to it.

------
tomswartz07
If you're curious, like I was- this is what the License Plate Readers look
like: [http://police-praetorian.netdna-ssl.com/VigilantVid-PR-
Feb.j...](http://police-praetorian.netdna-ssl.com/VigilantVid-PR-Feb.jpg)

I have seem them before but I originally thought these devices were some sort
of radar speedometer or something.

------
zaroth
Collecting this data on the general public should not be legal. If you are a
suspect in an active investigation it is completely different, but you must be
actively identified, you shouldn't be able to do what LA did and simply say
"everyone is a suspect".

I think you have to take these technologies to their logical conclusion,
because Moore's law will ultimately take it there. A camera recording every
plate, everywhere it goes, stored for all time. That's not a database any
people should allow their government to keep, warrant or not.

I'm glad they quoted the 2012 USA v Jones GPS tracking case, because this is
exactly the same thing with an even lower cost per vehicle tracked. Ultimately
I want Congress to pass a law putting limits on the data retention, but
obviously that's not going to happen any time soon.

------
jumby
Simply stated:

Plate != Person

To get to "Person" you need to have a permissible purpose that is already
protected under the DPPA (a federal law)

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act)]

------
mschuster91
It's bad enough the state collects and retains this data.

It's even worse that this kind of data can legally be obtained by FOIA. I'm
all for transparency, but not where it touches the privacy of individuals.

btw, I have no particular problem with plate scanners as long as no-hits are
not stored for longer than 7 days and any searches on the data heap are
authorized by a judge (e.g. to gather data in a murder case).

~~~
zaroth
I think the best part of the story is that they could do the FOIA. The data is
not somehow magically safe from misuse because the press can't see it. In
fact, quite the opposite.

------
nly
> "you should support restrictions on how long law enforcement agents can
> store this data, and who can access it, and under what circumstances."

Or better yet, start opposing its collection... if you're under the speed
limit no authority has a good reason to keep track of where you're going and
when.

------
gregors
instruction manual for Pagis/Boss
[https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ALPR/delaware/alprpra_n...](https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ALPR/delaware/alprpra_ncc_newcastlecountyde.pdf)

------
xai3luGi
Is it illegal to put infrared LEDs around your license plate to obscure it to
these cameras?

~~~
warmwaffles
Yes. It can be considered tampering with evidence in an "ongoing" operation. I
too have thought of this for radar guns and laser speed guns. But most of
these sensors know when they are being jammed and can actually result in the
FCC finding you and fining you.

~~~
bmohlenhoff
Radar guns are regulated by the FCC because they are RF sources. They aren't
going to come after you for mounting extra lightbulbs on your car.

Infrared bulbs are more similar to polarized plastic covers that obscure the
plate when viewed from certain directions. Not sure if they are illegal or not
but they are definitely outside the purview of the FCC.

------
EGreg
[http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169](http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=169)

------
innguest
\- people vote for cops to track license plates "for security", "for the
children", "don't complain if you have nothing to hide"

\- libertarians complain "you don't know who will be in power tomorrow and
(mis)use this data or allow for its misuse"

\- some company comes along and buys the data off the cops because those in
power let them. Maybe those in power when the law for collecting this data
passed promised that this data wouldn't ever be shared, but now it's someone
else or they changed their mind because fuck the people.

~~~
rikkus
We'll never get clear statistics on this, but at some point it will be
possible to start making judgements on whether keeping this data (and making
it available to the public) is a net negative or positive.

My gut tells me that it's a negative, but my head tells me there is, or will
be, no real way to stop it being collected, even if it's not public bodies
doing the collection.

~~~
picks_at_nits
> even if it's not public bodies doing the collection

There already are private companies that drive around scanning license plates
and selling access to the data. One of their “use cases” is selling the data
to “repo men.”

~~~
maxerickson
Are there dedicated vehicles doing it? I had the idea that tow trucks were
using the scanners and sharing data, I hadn't heard about anything dedicated
to plate scanning.

Edit: This article mentions "purpose-built camera cars":

[http://www.caranddriver.com/features/screen-plate-club-
how-l...](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/screen-plate-club-how-license-
plate-scanning-compromises-your-privacy-feature)

