SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the its-in-your-own-interests,-honestly dept.
Nearly six years ago, two federal law enforcement agencies considered using license plate readers (LPRs) at gun shows—at least in the Phoenix, Arizona area.
LPRs scan plates at a very high speed—often 60 plates per second—and record the date, time, and precise location that a given plate was seen. Typically, on a patrol car, that plate is then immediately compared to a list of wanted or stolen cars, and if a match is found, the software alerts the officer. But all scans are routinely kept by various law enforcement agencies for long periods of time, sometimes as long as years or more.
According to a heavily redacted set of documents that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) received and published earlier this week, a 2009 e-mail presumably from the Drug Enforcement Agency states that the “DEA Phoenix Division Office is working closely with the [Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms] on attacking the guns going to [REDACTED] and the gun shows, to include programs/operation with LPRs at the gun shows.”
Wow, shocking. /s
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01 2015, @10:56PM
I've been thinking about countermeasures for plate scanners.
You can't modify the plate, that's explicitly illegal. In most states you can not obscure the plate, so all those polarized/fresnel covers that limit the viewing angle are out too. But, as far as I have been able to tell there are basically no laws about what you put near the plate.
Most cars have extra space on both sides of the plate in order to accommodate wider european plates. So, what I propose is to put vinyl stickers of extra digits using the same font, foreground and background colors on either side. Automatic scanners will probably still read a consistent number from your vehicle, but they won't be able to tell where the actual plate starts and the fake numbers end - they will get a number that is not your actual plate number. So this will frustrate any automated attempts to link scanner data with vehicle records.
A regular human won't be fooled, but a regular human is not the risk that needs to be defended against. The risk is from automated scans that go into permanent databases without any suspicion of wrong doing that are then repurposed to invade driver's privacy. It isn't just government scans either, repo companies are collecting millions of scans every day [betaboston.com] and selling the info for just a few dollars. Companies like Target are scanning their parking lots [youtube.com] - they claim it is for safety purposes and while that is true, it would be foolhardy to believe they don't also use the data to profile their customers, even the ones who deliberately use cash.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01 2015, @11:34PM
This one is a classic:
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--V3UcKMiK--/18mpenleoksq8jpg.jpg [kinja-img.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02 2015, @12:26AM
What you are describing is sufficiently annoying to a human reader that you would likely get ticketed for obstructing your license plate, because you are interfering with its readability. They would argue that if your car were involved in a robbery or a hit and run that the extra digits would interfere with any witnesses' ability to read the plate.
what it comes down to is that the law requires a car operated on public streets to have a visible identifier (with temporary exemptions for recent sales, but that's another identifier anyway), anything you do to interfere with the readability of the plate is going to be received poorly by cops and judges. Public opinion would likely tilt against you as well if you insisted on taking this in front of a jury. This is just about the least effective way to be a crusader for privacy rights.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday February 02 2015, @01:43AM
Wa State Law on the matter:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.16A.200 [wa.gov]
It really doesn't say that you can't put stuff _around_ the license plate, just that the license plate cannot be obscured and that the license plate must be readable. The crux will be "readable by a person, or machine readable". All litigation is a casino game to one extent or another, and nothing is every 100% certain, but if I were arguing this case, I'd want to be on the side arguing it is OK to use bumper stickers rather than on the side that needs to convince a judge to accept some pretty strained reading of various terms (if you don't overlay something on the plate, how can you be obscuring it or making it inconspicuous -- will bumper stickers really be outlawed -- bigger argument, is this political speech? If so, the 1st amendment trumps a stupid license plate law -- and so on).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02 2015, @03:43AM
They just have to tell you to get bent and continue letting everyone else have their bumper stickers. There is no dilemma!
See 7c and the definition of illegible (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegible). They can easily argue that deliberately adding decoy text in the same font is making it illegible.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday February 02 2015, @04:34AM
The context is a frame for the license plate which obscures an important part of the plate. Something to the side, not even touching the plate is not affecting the plate at all, not making it illegible, not making it hard to read, not changing the characters or colors -- it does absolutely nothing at all to the license plate itself. This is a strained reading of the plain language of the statute and as such, it should be discounted. The emphasis on "should" of course.
To do this right though, you need to make it political speech, because the 1st Amendment would come into play. So, maybe a sticker on the left with two or three random characters and a sticker on the right, using smaller font of course, which says "Check the Constitution" or "Fuck the NSA" or something like that.
If in the end, if there is a high court ruling in favor of the driver, then that would be good, and if there is a high court ruling against the driver, it will do one of two things: get people interested enough to amend the constitution, or barring that, be the last final obvious declaration that it's a good time to emigrate -- we already have the gulag (gitmo) and death squads (drone pilots) wreaking due process free detention and execution, the officially legalized mass surveillance will just be the last piece of proof that the Feds are despots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02 2015, @02:37PM
To do this right though, you need to make it political speech, because the 1st Amendment would come into play. So, maybe a sticker on the left with two or three random characters and a sticker on the right, using smaller font of course, which says "Check the Constitution" or "Fuck the NSA" or something like that.
Just pick the "random characters" so that they have meaning, like 1776 or "4TH" and "AMD"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02 2015, @02:25AM
> This is just about the least effective way to be a crusader for privacy rights.
It has nothing to do with being a "crusader" and everything to do with personal defense. I'll leave the demonstrating and protesting to the people who want to put in the work (and I will support them in spirit, words and respect any chance I get), my goal is simply to stay out of ANPR databases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02 2015, @03:46AM
Well if your goal is to avoid being in the ANPR database by putting yourself in the traffic ticket database, then more power to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02 2015, @04:04AM
Your assumption is that a cop is going to care. No cop is even going to recognize the intended goal of such a countermeasure because they don't understand how OCR works. He's going to look at it, think its a little weird, and then move on.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday February 02 2015, @01:52PM
Funny how government thugs install privacy-invading surveillance equipment everywhere and it's illegal to try to stop your privacy from being invaded by automated machines.
Public opinion would likely tilt against you as well if you insisted on taking this in front of a jury.
If I were on the jury, I'd attempt jury nullification.
This is just about the least effective way to be a crusader for privacy rights.
Well, until some magical solution is put forth, I have to protect my privacy somehow. I use encryption and free software to try to protect my communications, and I have to use other means to protect other types of privacy. I'm not going to just campaign for privacy rights for years and years, all the while letting my rights get violated. I'm going to take action to protect my rights, which is another form of protest. Why this would turn the public against you is a mystery, but I guess the public hates freedom.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday February 02 2015, @01:26AM
Brilliant!