Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Sunday February 23 2014, @10:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the party-like-it's-1984 dept.

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."]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:38PM (#5239)

    Not even the ALCU/EFF are arguing otherwise, just that the system should be more transparent.

    You're full of shit. From the fine line to the EFF:

    We will continue to push for records in this case and to encourage legislatures to pass legislation--like Michigan's and Massachusetts'--that has teeth and provides meaningful limits on the collection, retention and sharing of license plate data.

    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.

    We have also argued, though, that the only way to have an informed public debate about appropriate limits on ALPRs is through greater transparency about how the technology is actually being used.

    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.

    Some of this legislation--like New Hampshire's, which bans police and private companies from using license plate readers, and the proposed legislation in Michigan, which would limit the retention of license plate numbers to no longer than 48 hours--are really good.

    IOW, you're a shill and a bad one at that. Stop trying to put words in others people's mouths.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Underrated=1, Total=1

    Total Score:   1