This common saying.
I'd rather be paranoid and informed than blissfully ignorant. But a person can only process so much while carrying on with their lives.
The jewel beetle attempts to mate with an amber glass bottle it finds attractive until it dies from exhaustion.
We increasingly manufacture our own deception. Deep fakes, targeted advertising, you name it. We are both the beetle and bottle designers. It is definitely worth thinking about.
It's much easier to design glass bottles than to save beetles from the best and worst time of their lives.
Now, as crafty bottle designer, think of all the stuff you could do, given the necessary resources.
It might not be a bad idea to also compile a list of their retailers’ investor relations and Twitter accounts and tweet this article to them (here's their store directory ). I just started e-mailing the brands I know.
> The Irvine Company develops suburban master-planned communities throughout central and southern Orange County, in addition to residential buildings in Santa Monica, Silicon Valley, and San Diego. The company also owns and manages office buildings in Milpitas, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Downtown San Diego, Mission Valley, San Diego, La Jolla Village/University City, Sorrento Mesa, Del Mar Heights, Newport Center, UCI locations, West Los Angeles, Pasadena, Chicago, and New York City.
I'll be interested to see how they respond.
Significantly more creepily, WF uses wide-coverage anonymous device tracking to build customer profiles of visitor paths/time spent in shops across multiple visits to place targeted ads via FB and the like. Don’t walk around in a mall without your Faraday cage.
I could see a reasonable case being made for collecting these data, storing them for a few weeks, and then deleting them, to protect against thieves.
The problem here is that for the government to collect these data, they would need to follow certain processes. A private actor who isn't following those processes is placing those data with the government, thereby circumventing a critical check on police power.
Don't mind if I do start referring to online abuses of privacy as such
All that extraneous data in your credit reports is up for sale to qualifying purchasers-- be it law enforcement, marketing firms, or financial institutions.
I disagree. Everyone shouldn't have to sacrifice everything associated with their license plate info, everywhere they go, because of a few thieves. It's not a reasonable balance; my privacy is worth a lot to me.
The problem with storing data that requires "certain processes" to ensure safety is that it might not be your decision. Governments collecting data is one example; others include desperate behavior by companies in bad financial situations or Equifax-style theft.
Someone trying to lose weight is probably able to resist the box of cookies in their pantry most of the time. Unfortunately being human means having occasional bad days where the will isn't necessarily up to the challenge. The responsible person recognizes that weaknesses exist and doesn't keep the box of cookies in the house.
I'm sure data will be handled safely most of the time, when it's easy. The real question is what will happen in difficult, morally problematic situations when the cost of acting ethically might include losing your job (or worse. One of the responsible way to handle that kind of problem is to avoid it entirely by not collecting the data.
Half the point of a blockchain is that once data is out there it can't be removed. You can't leverage that to force the removal of something.
So everyone is guilty to proven innocent?
I know some mall companies record license plate data on a daily basis to make sure the employees are parking in the way-way-way out employee designated parking areas.
How long that data is stored and who else gets to see it is anyone's guess.
Unfortunately, it you're on the mall's property, you have no legal right to not being surveilled by the mall.
You can easily keep license plate data much longer by simply stating, "we are using it as evidence". For what? "An on-going investigation."
Done. Now you have it for much longer than 60 days.
You have to start somewhere.
Nobody in this thread has proposed abolishing ICE. It is a non-mainstream political movement entirely unrelated to this thread.
Before that, customs and immigration concerns were handled perfectly well by the United States Customs Service (in the Treasury Department) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Department of Justice.)
What is new with ICE is the militaristic "hunt them down" approach to immigration enforcement while pushing back on due process for offenders (which they mostly get away with because these people are poor non-citizens). Suggesting we do away with that is not that radical -- it's actually quite civilized and a return to much more humane pre-9/11 norms.
Then they'd all be contributing to the bottom line, the only reason people hate them being here in the first place right? Nobody wants a freeloader, so let's make it so anyone living here can't be one.
"You have a California location at Fashion Island . It has recently become public that the operator of that mall, Irvine Company, is sharing customers' license plate data--due to no legal obligation and en masse--with ICE . Irrespective of political affiliations, I believe we share a mutual respect for customers' privacy. Hoping your brand, currently running a #WeAreMankind campaign, is wiling to speak out about this inconsistency.
What I don't get is the whole selective enforcement of laws thing. If someone somehow managed to get across the border that gets the person some sort of award for sneaking past the border patrol and thus a right to stay here for being a particularly sneaky lawbreaker? The legal reasoning behind all this just strikes me as ridiculously convoluted.
You might say that one type of person wants everyone to be like docker containers, not interfering with one-another and another type of person wants to be like a monolithic application where anyone's problem becomes everyone's problem, but free resources are to be shared.
Oh, absolutely. If someone doesn’t like the surveillance state, this is just another datapoint on an ever-increasing list. Still disappointing, but not uniquely so.
The people so civically unengaged that they actively champion the increased surveillance of modern life right up to the point it’s used against their pet causes disgust me.
I work for an ISP and we do not track our customers. At all. We bill them and they receive a reliable service that performs as advertised. Maybe we could go back to the oldschool model of actually selling a product or service, delivering it to the customer, and keeping the customer happy?
A niqab might do for now, but I'm guessing height, gate and precise location might provide too much fingerprinting information.
Regrettably, the notoriously anti-immigration government here in Denmark has instituted just such a law, apparently because of a couple thousand women who wear niqabs and maybe 20 who wear burqas. They claim it's to "fight social control", which I find extremely ironic since it's the women who'll be getting fined!
And of course, the excuse the government uses is that it's for "public safety during demonstrations and for identification purposes in banks and similar situations".
I'm not actually sure whether it's actually meant to target the niqab/burqa-wearing women, or if it's because of the left-wing protests against the government, where some of the participants wear masks. Either way, banning specific types of clothes usually only happens in totalitation states.
It's perfectly reasonable to require companies to tell us what data they're collecting and how it will be used.
We have the capability to reverse societal trends when we as a collective find them to be antithetical to our morals. This is no different.
It's easy "you can't hire employees" and enforce it, it's a lot harder to go "you can't use the billions and billions of cameras in existence to record or track thing" and realistically hope to enforce it, especially when there is valid application.
I'm quite fine with the government knowing where my government registered, government licensed, government plated car is going. To legally drive a car you have to be licensed by the government, your car has to be registered with the government and you have to have a license plate issued by the government. You're going to be driving on public roads and private parking lots that have security cameras, ticketing cameras, news cameras, rear view cameras, autonomous car sensors, intersection monitoring cameras, internet streaming cameras and not to mention just about every human being you drive by will have at least one camera on their person.
This is a fact of life. Barring the discontinuation of using electricity this isn't going to change.
Do you have a phone? You're leaving records on every tower your phone connects to. Do you use WiFi? You're leaving records. Do you have a car with OnStar? You're leaving records. Do you use something like Automatic, you're giving a company all of your driving paths. Do you use Uber or Lyft, you're leaving a trail of where you go.
Are you an illegal immigrant or a human/drug/weapon trafficker that is under investigation using a specific vehicle to commit your crimes? Yes? Then don't go to the mall.
I wouldn't say that's "easy" by any measure. It requires(/d) a large shift of public opinion and awareness, enforcement is in many ways harder because there's less visibility.
> I'm quite fine with the government knowing where my government registered, government licensed, government plated car is going.
You're right. Most of us are. Are you ok with them implanting chips into you as a baby to track your every move? Assuming your response to that is "no" then you realize that the issue at hand is scope. There are limits to what we'll accept.
> Do you have a phone? You're leaving records on every tower your phone connects to. Do you use WiFi? You're leaving records.
Again you're confusing the principle at large and the scope at which it's applied.
> Are you an illegal immigrant or a human/drug/weapon trafficker that is under investigation using a specific vehicle to commit your crimes? Yes? Then don't go to the mall.
This is a reductive argument. When I talk about the scope above I'm talking about the impact it has on everyone.
I don't see a reason to believe this. It would be easy to restrict this behavior.
1) companies have gotten so big that one company can control a huge number of shopping malls
2) huge-scale data collection and transmission is so easy/cheap that one decision by one person can affect the privacy of hundreds of thousands of people
3) the “service” model of software delivery makes it much harder to know what is or isn’t being done with the data that you’re generating by using that software
I imagine that would require much better cameras and cost more. On my car the tamper prevention measures make it hard to read from many angles as well.
I think the solution for the use case you describe is coming in 2020, where cars will be able to talk to each other and to road sensors. That technology will probably be used to collect mileage taxes and demand pricing as cars shift to electric, so identity will eventually be a component.
And since most people don't change their tires very often, with enough sensors deployed in various locations (parking lots, drive-throughs, gas stations, etc...) it is very easy to develop patterns of movement and build a profile of an individual person.
It gets even worse when you realize that the tire sensor data can be date/timestamp correlated with your phone's bluetooth radio. So a pattern can be developed for inside movement, as well.
Big retail chains are already doing this (the bluetooth part). No need to have the Radio Shack electric eye bing-bong on the front door to count customers anymore. Now you can just tally the bluetooth IDs and not only tell how many customers you're getting, but how many UNIQUE customers you're getting, which areas of the store they visit most frequently, how long they linger at various displays.
And yes, they know if you're just there to use the bathroom, thanks to the phone you take with you in there.
I wonder if some day this behavior profiling will allow stores to refuse you entry because you've been there 20 times in the last six months and never bought anything, but used the bathroom every time.
It’s a scary space, but that’s part of why I joined. The space needs more smart privacy focused engineers to make sure things are built respecting privacy (I rearchitected systems to where no one person could be tracked and only aggregate data existed).
I’d love to be utopian and say nothing like this should exist, but the reality is if we don’t build it, someone will, and likely do it poorly.
There have been a few malls in our area that closed after gang related activity and violence in their vicinity became known. If you are a mall owner and have this happen, would you not be remiss to take measures to try to know who is visiting your property and using it as a place to conduct illegal activities?
If a car shows up that is registered to someone on a warrant for a violent crime, should the mall owner do nothing? Not their business?
What about a car registered to someone who lost their license due to DUI? What if that person frequents the mall and kills someone with their car?
Source: I worked for a company doing something vaguely similar (we covered the inside of stores, not the parking lot). I spent my time there working to provide best in class anonymization to only allow aggregate data.
As to your specific fear mongering questions:
> If a car shows up that is registered to someone on a warrant for a violent crime, should the mall owner do nothing? Not their business?
1) that data isn’t generally publicly available to them
2) that’s why you hire security guards
> What about a car registered to someone who lost their license due to DUI? What if that person frequents the mall and kills someone with their car?
1) again, not generally publicly available
2) what makes you think the drivers licenseless person could be the only driver
There is a Costco shopping center near me that has had a few cases of straight up wheel theft during the height of their shopping times that were not solved until they tracked plates, but alas, this seems like a case of the blade cutting both ways.
I want to say "Screw ICE", but this does seem like a valid case of tracking who is frequenting their lots.
5 Billion vehicle detections seems like an awfully high (and possibly made up) number. Even if you allow for the same vehicle to be detected 5 or 10 times, the total number of registered vehicles in US was barely around 300 million.
Or did I mis-interpret that statement / claim ?
Examples: The RFK/Triboro bridge in NYC gets 60M crossings annually. I95 at the North/Carolina border gets 14M cars a year. State DOTs publish this information for all interstate and many other highways, so it’s easy to piece see where the flows are.
Additionally, DMVs sell all sorts of information, and auto repair and dealerships sell whatever DMV does not. It’s definitely pretty easy to gather and correlate data like this.
I’d assume that many players, from billboard companies to the feds to fast food operators are collecting this data. It is too cheap to collect and too valuable to many parties for that to not be happening.
But it's Chicago, so they do it the old-fashioned way: A guy sitting in a lawn chair on the sidewalk with a clicker in each hand.
Seriously. Watch for it next time you're on a main shopping drag in that town.
New York has a good FAQ. https://dmv.ny.gov/dmv-records/permissible-uses-personal-inf...
Some states are not so good at protecting data, or rely on an honor system: https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/cbs-11-investigates-your...
I've been told that if you self-maintain, you'll have a hard time getting a trade-in as dealers expect to get service history.
Scores of police departments and other government agencies run ALPR cameras, and share the results with Vigilant and other companies so that they can have access to all of the results that Vigilant holds. Philadelphia PD even ran unmarked vehicles with ALPR equipment bearing a Google Maps logo a few years back.
Repo companies and others are sending out drivers in vehicles with ALPR cameras who patrol mall parking lots, apartment complexes, etc and then upload all of that data to one of several companies including Vigilant. These folks can scan 15,000 plates a day without a lot of effort.
Homeowner associations and apartment complexes (or their security companies) also frequently have these ALPR cameras along the paths of ingress or egress.
Universities are using ALPR for parking enforcement (and then selling the data to companies.)
“Irvine Company is a customer of Vigilant Solutions. Vigilant employs ALPR technology at our three Orange County regional shopping centers. Vigilant is required by contract, and have assured us, that ALPR data collected at these locations is only shared with local police departments as part of their efforts to keep the local community safe.”
The Swedish agency of data regulation was able to challenge the system in court and got the chain to dismantle the system, and with fines added to that. This was a couple of years ago, long before GDPR.
Something like this would absolutely not fly on this side of the pond, and I'm very glad about that.
This has been the case for at least 5+ years, now.
Are they using ALPR for their own security and voluntarily sharing the reads? Is the provider giving them a discount to do so or paying to place cameras or something?
I served on a jury where the police were able to gather footage covering like 14/24 hours of the defendants time from a variety of camera feeds (up to 40 I think).
After torturing us with introducing dozens of these videos to build the timeline, the case was fucked up (and defendant found not guilty) because they couldn’t explain NTP in the context of a camera used as the primary time reference point.
Here's one called Vegas SafeCam: https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/VegasSafeCam.aspx
"You’ve purchased a home surveillance system and have registered your system with the LVMPD. Several weeks later, a Patrol officer comes to your door and informs you of a recent burglary in your neighborhood. The Patrol Officer has used the database for this program in their patrol car, and has gone to your residence for follow-up. The Patrol officer asks you if it would be possible for you to review your video for a suspicious person or vehicle between the listed times of the event."
The Las Vegas one isn't real-time, but I believe Chicago's might be. Then again, about 10 years ago, CPD was bragging about having 3,000 cameras around the city. It must be 300,000 by now.
Max Headroom wasn't campy sci-fi. It was a warning.
I questioned why this was necessary and received a vague hypothetical about domestic abusers/deranged exes harassing employees/kidnapping suspects entering the property, with no clear indication as to how we'd flag such individuals without them having active warrants out.
The only practical use case was perhaps catching vehicles with active Amber Alerts out that might try to hide out on the property.
So the police basically got free intel from us, and we received no incentives to install or maintain such equipment from them.
So could cell phone records, but ALPR is simpler and fewer legal concerns. As a business owner, there's little downside, and most of the employees would have been caught on ALPR, toll booths, cell phone tracking, and other tracking a dozen times on their way to work already.
I don't really like that location data is near-public information nowadays, but I don't see it getting any better.
The Supreme Court has continuously recognized the difference between manual and sustained, remote and automated tracking, even in public spaces . The "seismic shifts in digital technology" we are presently undergoing require vigilance to be maintained in respect of the Bill of Rights.
The DPPA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_...] already restricts who has the ability to convert from plate to actual personal information.
Some of the higher-tier services use ALPR cameras that map plates to GPS coordinates. Property ownership is public information so you can narrow down the owner of a vehicle's plate based on where they're parked overnight. You can deduce where the owner works by tracking where it's parked between 9 and 6. You can deduce who the owner's associates are by tracking who he tends to park near when not at home or work.
The beauty of it is how well it scales. One van can patrol your neighborhood. Another can patrol the mall. Another can drive around and through your office park. Another might catch you simply driving down the road. It's like having spies everywhere, and they're all feeding their observations back to a central database to build a broader profile...which they later sell to law enforcement upon request.
(Or you can make like Vincent Asaro and just give a cop buddy the plate number of the car that cut you off and have your post-roadrage firebomb run expedited. DPPA sure helped that guy!)
If that's not sustained surveillance then please explain your understanding of the concept.
The Government’s position fails to contend
with the seismic shifts in digital technology
that made possible the tracking of not only
Carpenter’s location but also everyone else’s,
not for a short period but for years and years.
Sprint Corporation and its competitors are not
your typical witnesses. Unlike the nosy neighbor
who keeps an eye on comings and goings, they
are ever alert, and their memory is nearly
That's the difference, beyond simple public/private. It's not that the license plate display itself is private but storing the data forever and being nearly infallible amounts to an unreasonable intrusion on privacy when handed over to the government. Notably, the USSC in a 9-0 ruling from 2012 held that attaching a GPS tracker to a car also required a warrant. _United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).
perhaps even more interesting, Trump appointee Gorsuch seemed to be saying that even more general data privacy could exist under the fourth amendment: ... it seems to me entirely possible a person's cell-site data could qualify as his papers or effects under existing law.
this offers a far better explanation than i can give: http://reason.com/blog/2018/06/22/scotus-rejects-warrantless...
it’s the same as if a person standing on the street saw your plate and told someone else.
This is one of the areas where scaling really matters, and you can do many things with these sort of databases that were simply intractable before. So I find the conceit that it is "just the same" to be inept.
I don't know where the courts and legislators are eventually going to arrive at on this, but if it is as cut and dried as you suggest then you can look forward to a near future where anyone who cares to can buy a detailed dossier on all of your movements for the last decade, say, with known and inferred contacts, assets, etc. It probably won't be very expensive.
Cool, so you won't mind if i install a GPS tracker in your car that tells me your vehicle's location 24/7, since the exact same information can be gleaned from "a person on the street seeing your plate"?
The problem with ALPR is that it allows a few, otherwise occupied people -- such as parking lot attendants or repo agents or policemen -- to drive around like they normally do and automatically collect massive amounts of data on vehicles and their location without incurring any cost on their behalf (beyond "slightly decreased fuel efficiency because the ALPR equipment needs power from the alternator").
The same act of "looking at a license plate and noting down the location" becomes an entirely different thing when conducted at massive scale and at negligible cost.
There are boundaries between reasonable use of nominally public information and the normal expectation of some degree of privacy outside the home.
It doesn't have the goofball repeatedly calling the police aspect, but that's the less interesting part to me.
My question remains: if it were happening to you, would you be ok with it?
ICE goes after human traffickers too.
If you want open borders that’s fine. We have a congress and they can legally pass that policy. Write your representative and senators or something.
This has nothing to do with open borders. Why would you even bring that up?
Modern criminal law in the West is built on the presumption of innocence. Invading the privacy of many people who are practically guaranteed to be innocent for the sake of finding one criminal that may be hiding among them is directly contrary to that.
It is not wrong for the NSA to try to find terrorists, but it is wrong for them to sift through my text messages "just in case" when they have no reason to believe I'm involved in terrorism. It is not wrong for police to enforce laws, but it is wrong for them to stop you and search your car without any reason to believe you've committed a crime. It is not wrong for ICE to secure our borders, but it is wrong for them to track the movements of millions of everyday people lest they find that one has a pattern of movement that may suggest people smuggling.
Inflicting cruelty on innocent children is not a reasonable deterrent in a civilized society that has any intention of being moral or just.
Also this is a great example of static thinking, because it completely ignores dynamic effects. Ban family separation, how humane! Second order effect: incentivize bringing children when committing crimes. A sane and compassionate, as well as moral and just, society doesn’t want to encourage bring your kids to crime day either.
For a misdemeanor the police are absolutely not going to take someone's children and ship them to detention centers in other states with no clear way of getting them back or even getting in touch with them. Most of the time a misdemeanor means showing up to court and paying a fine.
> Also this is a great example of static thinking, because it completely ignores dynamic effects. Ban family separation, how humane! Second order effect: incentivize bringing children when committing crimes.
That doesn't make any sense. Currently, even someone who is charged with one or more felonies does not have their children taken away from them and shipped elsewhere. The only time that would happen is in cases of neglect or abuse.
Does that mean our justice system is incentivizing felonies? No. Bottom line is that the law can be enforced just fine without a barbaric policy that harms children for the sins of their parents.
Bottom line is that it is. Not. Done.
And it clearly is appropriate to 'think of the children' when cruelty is being purposefully inflicted on children as official government policy. There's no rational defense for that policy that is compatible with our legal system.
Again, your reasoning faculty has been overwhelmed by effective rhetoric. Take a deep breath, step back, and start using your left hemisphere.
Edit: we already had to warn you about this recently. If you want to keep posting on HN, please read the guidelines and follow them from now on.
I already pointed out that children are only taken away in cases of neglect or abuse.
But if you must continue patting yourself on the back for how 'rational' you are while you can't provide any rational basis for your arguments, knock yourself out.
I'm an American citizen. I don't like that my visits to and from a mall being automatically collected by private company for a federal agency with domestic policing capabilities. One can construct a Fourth Amendment case critical of this practice that is completely agnostic towards the illegal immigration debate.
I don't like the scanning at all but this is a far cry from a national gun show surveillance program.
As an industry, software is still very young. And as it comes of age in the modern era, its impact continues to reach further and further into the fabric of society. We are more than ever before making ethical questions part of the conversation when developing technology.
Politics and policies making their way into HN is therefore an inevitable evolution. Nothing else.
I am going to debate the fact that the HN community silences opposing opinions and comments, which won't be popular... But it is evident in the fact that I challenge you to show a conservative viewpoint post making the front page. I have personally seen comments and posts silenced by a minority that had the majority of votes countless times.
Anyway, I digress which is the entire point. In the same vein as I loath sports pundits that try and always get political because it distracts from the essence of sports, the same is true of HN.
Illegally entering is a criminal misdemanor, so they aren't the same thing.
Unless there's some international border in Sunnyvale I missed, I don't think the ALPRs will catch any illegal entry.
There is a big difference between overstaying a visa for a few weeks and illegal migration.