Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Since 2016, Sacramento County officials have been accessing license plate reader data to track welfare recipients suspected of fraud, the Sacramento Bee reported over the weekend.
Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance Director Ann Edwards confirmed to the paper that welfare fraud investigators working under the DHA have used the data for two years on a "case-by-case" basis. Edwards said the DHA pays about $5,000 annually for access to the database.
Abbreviated LPR, license plate readers are essentially cameras that upload photographs to a searchable database of images of license plates. Each image captured by these cameras is annotated with information on the registered owner, the make and model of the car, and time-stamped GPS data on where it was last spotted. Those with access, usually police, can search the database using a full or partial license plate number, a date or time, year and model of a car, and so on.
Source: Gizmodo
From the SacBee article,
County welfare fraud investigators with the Department of Human Assistance use ALPR [automated license plate recognition] data to find suspects and collect evidence to prove cases of fraud, said DHA Director Ann Edwards. Investigators determine whether to use the data on a "case-by-case" basis "depending on the investigative needs of the case," she said.
"It's really used to help us locate folks that are being investigated for welfare fraud," she said. "Sometimes they're not at their stated address."
Through agreements, law enforcement agencies across California and the U.S. upload the images they obtain to a database owned by Livermore-based corporation Vigilant Solutions, which says the data help police solve crimes, track down kidnappers and recover stolen vehicles. Users can search the database by license plate, partial license plate, date or time, year or model of car, or by address where a crime occurred, which can show police which vehicles were in the area, the company's website says.
Related Stories
Bay Area transit system approves new surveillance-oversight policy
On Thursday, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Board of Directors voted to approve a new policy that requires that it be notified if the local police department wishes to acquire new surveillance equipment.
BART is one of the largest mass transit agencies in northern California, with a system that stretches from the San Francisco International Airport, through San Francisco itself, across to Oakland, north to Antioch and south to Fremont—adjacent to Silicon Valley. This new policy puts it in line with a number of other regional cities that impose community oversight on the acquisition and use of surveillance technology. It is believed to be one of the first, if not the first, such policies for a transportation agency in the nation.
[...] The new BART policy was approved just one day after the Bay Area News Group reported that BART police had been using license plate readers at the parking garage at MacArthur station in Oakland for several months beginning in January 2017. The data collected was, in turn, shared with a "fusion center" of federal law enforcement data known as the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center.
Somehow, the MacArthur license plate reader (LPR) system was installed months after the Board had voted in 2016 to delay installation of the high-speed scanners until a policy for their use could be drafted.
Related: California Senate Bill Could Thwart Automated License Plate Readers
California Senate Rejects License Plate Privacy Shield Bill
Forget Scanning License Plates; Cops Will Soon ID You Via Your Roof Rack
Los Angeles to Become the First City to Use Body Scanners in Rail Transit Systems
California Officials Admit to Using License Plate Readers to Monitor Welfare Recipients
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday August 17 2018, @02:03PM (24 children)
They're suspected of fraud. That makes them suspects. Did these fucks get a warrant? Because it sure sounds like the discretion on whether to spy on someone is left entirely up to the whims of investigators.
It takes 20 minutes to ask a judge. But no, let's just put down equipment to spy on everyone and arbitrarily track some poor people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:09PM
"Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home
..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 17 2018, @02:25PM (12 children)
Would they need a warrant for already collected data? Are your readily-observable-by-anyone movements out in public private information according to case law? Should they be? What're the practical and legal differences between physically following you around, tracking your cell phone, or using license plate readers? Do we really want the government constantly tracking the movements of every vehicle in the nation? Plenty of interesting question here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:30PM (7 children)
the data-collection is done by for profit private entities my man. the state does not pay for their infrastructure and only taxes the (probably delaware) corps doing the tracking. there may be lots of stories in that -- but in the end, they just pay for the use of the database.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 17 2018, @02:49PM (6 children)
So what's the difference between this and a private eye following you around everywhere you go, and then selling that information to a client or the cops or whoever? I mean, this is a lot of "Do what we could and did do before, but now with a computer."
And more to the point, any judge examining this would accept full well the argument that nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they park their car on the street or a publicly accessible parking lot. Anybody can see it there. And if anybody walking by can see that you visited the local sleazy sex motel, the cops or any private investigator can see it too. And if they can see it, they can put it into a computer too.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:56PM
that my friend is 'another set of stories'. my point is/was that ca has the legal right to check up the use of the funds they provide .. and the seem to be doing it for a grand total of 5k/yr. less than a penny per person.. e.g. an excellent investment of our money. (not dissing the orwellian dynamics or the dangers of a legal panopticon; but that is a completely seperate thing, yes?)
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @03:44PM (1 child)
That may be so. BUT, "any judge" may still not agree with the argument that the GOVERNMENT is allowed to track you this way.
In fact, SCOTUS has ruled explicitly that the government can't put trackers on your vehicle without a warrant. First there was United States v. Jones [wikipedia.org] (2012), which unanimously held that police must obtain a warrant to install a GPS tracker on your car. Some lower courts subsequently attempted to limit that decision, but SCOTUS again slapped that down unanimously [scotusblog.com] in Grady. v. North Carolina (2015).
The idea that the police could follow and observe your car in public places as an analogy was explicitly considered by several justices in U.S. v. Jones and rejected as a legal argument to get around the requirement for a warrant. Four of the justices in a concurring opinion (authored by Alito) said that long-term surveillance using a permanent tracker that could reveal personal details of your travel required a warrant, even absent the "intrusion" required to install said tracker on your property (the detail the other five justices focused on). Sotomayor, also in concurring opinion, expressed similar concerns even for short-term government monitoring.
So, no, "any judge" examining this wouldn't necessarily buy into the argument that just because police could observe the movements of your car on public streets that ANY type of similar tracking/surveillance is legal without a warrant. In fact, a significant number of SCOTUS justices in 2012 explicitly REJECTED that argument.
With the increased prevalence of license-plate scanning, a license plate by itself has become a de facto government tracker on your vehicle. To my knowledge, SCOTUS has not taken up that subject directly yet.
And note that in 2012, U.S. v. Jones was considered a shocking ruling that was rather unexpected to be unanimous from SCOTUS. They really disliked the idea of police tracking your car everywhere, even if police could theoretically do that kind of surveillance previously. I'm not saying SCOTUS would rule similarly on this issue, but I don't think widespread tracking of license plate data has come before them. Recall that just this summer SCOTUS slapped down government tracking of cell phones without a warrant. And the reasoning in that ruling (Carpenter v. U.S. [supremecourt.gov]) seems to go even further than Jones, emphasizing an explicit right of individuals not to be continuously tracked by the government in their everyday movements in life, absent some sort of warrant or investigative reason. While Carpenter was explicitly identified as a "narrow" ruling (and was 5-4), the reasoning might be applicable in some circumstances to a license-plate tracking case if the extent of tracking it offers could be shown to be comparable.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday August 17 2018, @10:49PM
I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote. It's entirely possible that this would be regarded as not legal without a warrant.
But the parallel I'd try for is the difference between phone metadata and content. Metadata is searchable because it passes through public networks without expectation of privacy. Content is not. One of the underpinnings in US v. Jones was Katz v. US where eavesdropping on a public payphone required a warrant.... yet pen registers do not. (A specific target requires a warrant. Collecting all records in a system from public facts and sifting them later does not.)
In this case your car's travel occurs in plain view in public. The records being consulted aren't necessarily focused upon your car - the record gathering part isn't concerned with your identity specifically. Instead it's consultation of records that were automatically generated by your travel being consulted after the fact. And so sayeth Wikipedia Jones did not consider whether taking GPS data *absent* a physical intrusion required a warrant. So while you've definitely got leanings on the court, this (plate scanning) is a separate and fresh issue in the eyes of the law is my guess.
But that's just my guess. IANAL.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Friday August 17 2018, @11:50PM
Game Theory. GAME THEORY. FUCKING GAME THEORY.
That's the difference. A huge fucking gaping chasm exists between a homeless person on the street (MDC excluded), a regular blue-collar worker with a family, a mid-level FBI agent, and J. Edgar "Burn-in-Hell" Hoover. If you collected all the information in the world, and handed it to an ascetic in India with no assets, no ambition (as we would define it), a suppressed ego, he would not be a threat to anyone. He would take no actions, as the data is meaningless to him, and as he has no assets, no computers, even if he wanted to take action against John Doe in Kansas, how does he do it? Now take a complete and utter shithead like Donald Trump, or even better, Adolf Hitler, and hand them all the information in the world. Are you worried yet? Information collection of this magnitude is what every Stasi-like police force has dreamed of.
I wholly and completely disagree with your assertion that I don't reasonably expect privacy in many public settings. I absolutely do expect privacy. I expect it because the average person around me isn't trying to record everything down, identify everybody and everything in every scene and image, and then store those notes forever. I do not EXPECT, CONDONE, nor APPROVE of the government and major corporations performing mass surveillance. In those settings, I don't consider it public property anymore where I can find peace. It's in infected area that might as well have signs up saying "No Privacy Beyond Sign". In that Dystopia, I might find an area of public land 75 miles from the nearest road and power hookup, and then finally find a place to have a picnic with my God-given right to privacy.
If a government agent is going to record information about me, then they need to document a REASON. Said reason, should be vetted by the Judicial branch of government as being so important, that it overrides my civil rights and right to privacy because the public good is threatened. As for corporations? They should be completely disallowed by law to make ANY mass recordings of public areas with the SOLE EXCEPTION of providing services authorized by the Judicial with a warrant. Which intrinsically excludes mass surveillance anyways.
No, it doesn't work that way. If the officer wants to remember that he saw my car in front of the sex motel, fine. If he wants to document it for any reason, it needs to be part of an official investigation. Not some database that can be perused later, asking it specifically for all identified individuals in front of the sex motel between two dates and times.
I'm all for a new Constitutional Amendment that strongly describes that my privacy is inviolable, and that I have rights to it even in public settings. Any data on any storage device regarding me is illegal, unless part of a government investigation with oversight plus checks and balances, or a signed opted-in service provided by a company, or my own personal storage device. Meaning, that if Facebook or the police has information on me in a database somewhere, it needs to be deleted lest I sue their fucking tits off in court.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 18 2018, @01:39AM
Don't forget the drop in cost by orders of magnitude. A few database queries from an existing database are a whole lot cheaper than hiring several people to track you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @02:39AM
In this case, that makes all the difference. The sheer accuracy, efficiency, and cheapness of spying on everyone using technology is what makes it so dangerous to freedom and democracy. This is why it must not be allowed, and why you cannot compare it to physically following people around using human spies.
I would add, however, that there are laws in various places against stalking, even when the stalking is done in public places. So even that is not clear-cut. There are different kinds of privacy, and some of them exist in public places.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DutchUncle on Friday August 17 2018, @02:42PM
This is a perfect example of how a "difference in degree" becomes a "difference in kind". Yes, the movements of your car on the public streets are readily-observable-by-anyone. But no, in the past "anyone" was one or more people taking notes, not a system with nearly perfect reading of nearly every car, accessible in real time, with perfect recall in perpetuity.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @04:00PM
Yes, as the collected data is probably illegally obtained. (And as a side-question, who verifies the correctness of the data?)
There are laws against stalking, invading privacy etc... Yes, a stalker can remain on public land at all times, only following someone on public lands and still be called and judged a stalker.
When the police think they need to do some stalking, they have to ask permission from the judge to make that legal for the very specific goals they request it for. This does not happen with such a camera system.
The argument is probably, but in public blablabla. It's called reasonable search. Someone seeing you pass by place C on your way from A to B, someone else seeing you park near place B, someone else noticing your nice or not so nice car. Reasonable
Someone following you from your home to your destination, making notes and photo's all along the way, and back. Not reasonable.
(Score: 2) by https on Friday August 17 2018, @05:04PM
There's only one interesting question, and the answer is "Don't."
As an illustrative thought experiment, imagine you are a not-so-dedicated police officer. Your captain has tasked you with surveilling me. What is the least amount of (i) work you must do, and (ii) record keeping that you must produce in order to not get your lazy ass fired, given that the order is kinda vague and therefore you have some leeway?
Once you've got that figured out, a bar set, shall we say, take another look at ALPRs. They meet that bar and are bucking for a promotion.
Spending any police resources investigating people who aren't actually under investigation is first and foremost, corruption, and second, a waste of the resources the state allocates to them - incompetence, if you will.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @02:34AM
Yes. Mass surveillance of all forms should be illegal. It allows the government to oppress whistleblowers, activists, journalists, and political opponents, thereby threatening all of democracy. I would go even further and say they should never be allowed to even collect the data to begin with, for it will certainly be abused in the future.
Despite what some people may say, even though it's a public place, it is possible to have certain kinds of privacy. Privacy from mass surveillance, for example. You can ban mass surveillance without disallowing other people from recognizing you in public, the latter of which would be impossible.
Physically following everyone around would cost too much, require too much manpower, and be less accurate. The efficiency and accuracy of automated mass surveillance is what makes it so dangerous. But even if the government did have the ability to follow everyone around physically, that too should be illegal.
Tracking cell phones is just another form of mass surveillance, and should be forbidden.
No. Not unless we want to live in a police state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:27PM (2 children)
Nope, no warrant needed when you enroll in such a program -- where you have to agree to supervision/monitoring in trade for goodies.
i think you're advocating for a right to free goodies without talking about the responsibility you have while dealing with the devil that provides. that's not the way it works.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday August 17 2018, @05:01PM (1 child)
Why is making this kind of dumbshit post not illegal?
None of the words you said are true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @07:22AM
Butbut! That's how it works in Ancapistan!
(Score: 2, Troll) by EvilSS on Friday August 17 2018, @02:49PM (6 children)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Spook brat on Friday August 17 2018, @07:17PM (5 children)
OK, let's say I'm a .USian agent of the state, and I decide to open an investigation on a suspect. I want to perform surveillance on the suspect; I have several options:
* stakeout: I go and stand in a place where I expect the suspect to commit a crime, and watch. If this is a public place, no warrant is required.
* mobile surveillance: I follow the suspect around wherever they go, observing their every move. This is an intrusion on their personal life, and per current case law requires a warrant.
* multi-point fixed surveillance: I place agents around the area the suspect is known to travel and have the agents report when the suspect passes them. This is equivalent in practice to mobile surveillance, and also requires a warrant.
* LPR: I place network-connected cameras on every street corner in the city, and record when any car passes any intersection regardless of whether or not they are suspected of a crime. Later, I do a database search to look for times/places the car registered to my suspect passed by a camera. This, somehow, does not require a warrant.
The fourth option violates the 4th amendment rights of every non-suspect person whose plate was read and recorded to database; a search of their person and effects (surveillance counts as a search) has been performed without a prior warrant particularly describing the person to be searched. It's only a matter of time until someone gets their conviction overturned because of this.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday August 17 2018, @09:38PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @02:42AM
That's under the current system, which is supported by short-sighted authoritarian judges. There are serious reasons [gnu.org] to question the status quo.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Saturday August 18 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
Sorry, I'm coming up blank. I'm going from memory of classroom instruction, and I can't find my textbooks (I just moved). My google-fu is also weak; all my searches are coming up with lots of discussions of electronic surveillance, and nothing on legal requirements for in-person mobile surveillance. I'll try to answer as best I can from memory anyhow, feel free to mark it with a big [citation needed] if you wish.
The distinction on what triggers the need for a warrant here is subtle; the degree of intrusiveness is what makes the difference. It's similar to the situation where someone has unwisely invited a police officer into their house; anything in plain sight is fair game, but the officer is not allowed to look under the bed for a stolen Porsche. [1]
There's a nuance of difference between the stakeout and a tail operation. One observation location, located in public, in a place where the police have jurisdiction to patrol, doesn't count as a search. Following a specific person wherever they go for an extended period of time does constitute a search.
Oh, one more disclaimer: the class I took was regarding the responsibilities of Federal investigators in regards to U.S. persons; it may not be appropriate for me to apply it to state or local police. On the other hand, I'd like to think that the restrictions that the 4th Amendment places on the Feds apply nationwide.
[1] one internets to anyone who spots the 80s reference in that sentence.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday August 26 2018, @02:46AM
And that's exactly what they're doing by reading my license plate and logging it into a database.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @03:09PM
When doing surveillance there is no such thing as overkill..
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 17 2018, @02:29PM (7 children)
Crime infested California has HORRIBLE taxes. Believe me, I know because I pay them. I have several properties out there, houses in Beverly Hills and a beautiful golf course, Trump National Los Angeles. I don't care about those properties, don't care at all. The Welfare is a huge huge burden on us California taxpayers. Lots of fraud going on. Finally they're getting tough on the Welfare Fraud. It sounds like they're getting tough and hopefully, they are. Great job if it's true. But, elect John Cox in November and you'll get a BIG TAX CUT!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:32PM
dude ... they are not cracking down, they are doing their f* job on your behalf. what's the friggn point of polarizing every little bit of news with your version of "FREE MONEY FOR ALL". get a grip!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @03:04PM (2 children)
You pay taxes???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @09:15PM
if you recall, the one tax return released showed Trump paid higher percantage in taxes then that Communist ass-fuck Bernie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @03:11PM
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 17 2018, @06:25PM (2 children)
Crime infested California has HORRIBLE taxes. Believe me, I know because I pay them.
Prove it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @08:33PM (1 child)
Why do you bother engaging the troll??
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday August 18 2018, @02:07AM
Because he is the most fun troll here.
An old fashioned, well thought out troll.
If (s)he just fucked up the spelling and grammar a bit, (s)he would be nearly indistinguishable from the real DT.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 17 2018, @02:32PM (3 children)
This sounds like a violation of the 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search.
> Welfare fraud includes activities like failing to report income
"Failing to report income" doesn't sound like sufficient reason to spy upon and track people. Could they get a search warrant for "failing to report income"? Maybe "failing to report income" isn't a heinous crime? And, there are other ways to determine income, like, oh, I dunno, your income taxes. They could even scrap the whole idea of reporting income and go with a universal basic income.
> and claiming care for a child who does not actually live with the benefits recipient, the DHA said.
Again, doesn't sound like a good reason to spy upon people. And more hoops to jump through. Can't they conceive ways to do without these burdensome requirements?
There's all kinds of problems with all this propaganda about takers, moochers, welfare queens and so on. I don't doubt that there are shiftless layabouts leeching off the public purse-- some of whom are multimillionaires, you know-- but which is the more serious problem, welfare fraud or welfare shaming? How many people should have gotten help but did not? Maybe they still have some pride? But the system seems designed to destroy pride while at the same time castigating people for being shameless and lacking pride. One of the principles of our legal system is that it's better to let a hundred guilty people go free than convict and imprison one innocent. However, policymakers seem to be okay with a hundred children going hungry if that stops one case of welfare fraud.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @02:36PM (2 children)
i wrote the tech for the original welfare to work program in CA and if you had .. you too might have read up a bit on the rules of that "your subjugation to the state in turn for enough crap to kinda live on" thing people have to agree to in order to get anything. .. and you would ask the same question i have of you: are you completely insane?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @07:21PM (1 child)
> i wrote the tech for the original welfare to work program in CA.....
??
Slow down and make your points one at a time. What you have written is not comprehensible.
Specifically, you started out OK:
> I wrote the tech for the original welfare to work program in CA.
...but didn't know when to stop (use a period).
+ Next sentence should explain why this gives you a unique perspective on the problem.
+ Then continue from that intro.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 18 2018, @07:29AM
He also doesn't seem to understand that around these parts, our legal system may find parts of contracts invalid or unenforceable.
That's unusual to him, because in Ancapistan, contracts are magical and the people are incapable of deviating from them. The word geas might be more appropriate for describing how it works.