SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
siliconwafer writes "The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is looking to acquire a vehicle license plate tracking system, to be used at the national level. According to the solicitation obtained by the Washington Post, commercial readers, supplied by a private company, would scan the plate of vehicles and store them in a "National License Plate Recognition" (NLPR) database. This is already being done at the state level, and privacy advocates are up in arms, with EFF and ACLU suing California over their automatic plate readers. Now that this has potential to become a broad and national program."
[ED Note: "Shortly after the Washington Post broke the story on the national plate reading system, it appears the DHS has shelved their plans for the tracking system, by order of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, at least in the interim."]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:13AM
Shelved for a few months until the furor dies down. You think the 800 ton gorilla will slow down any time soon, just when it's getting everything it ever wanted? In all of history, there has never been such power to track humans on such a scale, with such accuracy and precision, as there is today--and that ability is only increasing. Since it benefits the people at the top of the status quo, it'll continue to happen, short of the status quo being radically altered.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by glyph on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:35PM
I get the unprecedented-ability concern, but lets face it... driving on public roads is a privilege, and licence plates are there specifically for identification of vehicles that do so.
I guess I just can't see a legitimate reason why the government should *not* be allowed to use this new technology. Not even the ALCU/EFF are arguing otherwise, just that the system should be more transparent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LookIntoTheFuture on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:06PM
"...legitimate reason why the government should *not* be allowed to use this new technology."
Abuse of the collected data in the future, by people who have no morals.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:12PM
They mosty definitely do not need a compete history of who when where, and when. It *will* be abused.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by glyph on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:37PM
They will be tracking cars, not people. It's not nearly the same thing for law enforcement purposes, and within accepted practice under current laws.
Consider Google Glass. Many of the general public are afraid of the privacy implications, but geeks just shrug and tell them privacy in public is at best an illusion.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:29PM
Tracking cars not people, just like 'metadata' only tracks calls, not people.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:43PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by githaron on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:41PM
At one point in history, that may have been true but how would anyone function in modern society without being able to use public roads?
(Score: 1) by Foobar Bazbot on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:02PM
Hey, slow down!
He said "driving" on public roads is a privilege, and you said "using" public roads is essential in modern society. Don't you know that using public roads (The Way The Good Lord Intended, with feet) is a right, which nobody plans to take away*, and only these new-fangled motorcars need driving privileges granted by the state? It's for your own safety, so shut up and take your medicine!
*Y'know, aside from all the highways that are posted "motorized vehicles only"... kindly ignore those, else the state's position on the "right to travel" and the "privilege of driving" might look like some kind of farce.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:45PM
(Score: 2, Informative) by akinliat on Sunday February 23 2014, @06:52PM
And just recently a number of cities have made it a felony to do any of the above.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hb253 on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:51PM
Why don't we bypass all this preliminary crap and get to the desired end state? That being, tracking collars and periodic check-ins with "security officials" (similar to how ex-cons must meet with parole officers).
And maybe throw in some money to bribe people so they can rat out "suspicious" family members, friends and acquaintances...
The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
(Score: 1) by Eunuchswear on Monday February 24 2014, @04:36PM
Ex cons?
At the rate the US imprisons people you'll all be ex-cons soon.
Watch this Heartland Institute video [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:38PM
You're full of shit. From the fine line to the EFF:
Sounds a lot like they don't feel that government should be using it, or at least not using it without serious limitations. Transparency is cited as a MEANS to make the citizen aware of abuses.
They want transparency to HAVE A DEBATE about HOW TO LIMIT license plate readers. Taking someone's words and twisting them to suit your viewpoint is a common shill tactic. (Shill.) Even the states they cite as being good are those that limit the actual collection and storage of data--they don't cite them as being good because of transparency.
IOW, you're a shill and a bad one at that. Stop trying to put words in others people's mouths.