The danger of license plate readers in post-Roe America

https://www.wired.com/story/license-plate-reader-alpr-surveillance-abortion/

by arunbahl • 4 years ago

43 21 4 years ago

major505• 4 years ago

Its a danger to anyone who values its own privacy.

superkuh• 4 years ago

Yep. It's been nice to see a new subset of the population realize the dangers of pervasive surveillance and object to those they can live without. But what about the real dangers people don't want to think about because they're so useful?

It's pretty likely you carry a cell phone everywhere you go and it's always by you. They are literally tracking devices. It doesn't matter what software you run on the userspace computer on your phone. The cell modem you don't legally control will always be broadcasting beacons and the basestations with their shared accurate clocks are going to be multi-laterating your position down <100m. In the USA they're keeping this data for 2-5 years. And they're going to continue "anonymizing" this data that shows you going to work and home over and over for years by removing names and then selling the raw location data to companies which then sell it to government and special interest groups which de-anonymize it easily.

The only real privacy is turning off your cell phone radio.

devmunchies• 4 years ago

right, either you (1) value privacy and don't believe readers are ethical, or (2) you think a loss of some freedom to curb criminal activity is permissible.

The way the title uses "danger" frames criminal activity as a good thing as long as it's an activity you agree with. It should instead be a general call for privacy protections, not a selective call.

danschumann• 4 years ago

This should fall under a reasonable right to privacy. They should need to get a warrant for a specific crime to search for specific plates, not blanket access to search all and contrive crimes stridently after the fact.

bwanab• 4 years ago

You mean, like, actually respect the 4th Amendment?

staticautomatic2• 4 years ago

Except the 4th amendment isn’t an unqualified right. Abortion needs its own amendment.

Tade02• 4 years ago

In my corner of the world abortion is effectively banned - in practice even in cases when performing it would save the woman's life.

Some people cross the border, others buy Mifepristone on the black market.

Statistics still indicate no abortions and that is frequently used as an argument that the ban is effective.

SpikeDad• 4 years ago

US South?

Tade02• 4 years ago

Poland.

Animats• 4 years ago

Could this be used to track gun permit holders?

Gunax• 4 years ago

I have ranted about this before: but it all feels pointless.

The information is out there. You can make it illegal to look, but it doesn't matter.

Consider that a shopkeeper can recognize frequent customers by their face. Our brains are made for face recognition.

Now obviously that's at a different scale than automated plate readers, but the information is there. We just took for granted that no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces. Our privacy was guaranteed not in law, but in practicality.

You can try to ban it, and you can maybe ban municipalities from using it, but the information is there. Anyone can just set up a camera by their house or business and collect the same info.

jjav• 4 years ago

Now obviously that's at a different scale

This is exactly why the rest of your argument is wrong. The difference is scale is so vast that it makes the new surveillance society something completely different from people seeing other people in public as they have done for thousands of years.

no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces

Because it was literally impossible for someone to memorize a million faces. Let alone a few billion. And their precise location 24x7.

At most you'd have the occasional shopkeeper with a sharp memory who might remember a few thousand regulars. But even that information wasn't available via quick database query. You had to send investigators with photos to interview people.

Blackstrat2• 4 years ago

License plate readers were an issue long before RvW was overturned. And what everyone seems to be ignoring is that the Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Passing a reasonable bill, one that would garner bipartisan support, would be relatively easy. But remember, both parties value the issue, and the money and votes it garners, far more than solving the issue.

upsidesinclude• 4 years ago

You are absolutely correct!

Wildly, this strange new paradigm where everything old is new again might really benefit society. Progressives starting to understand the implications of mass surveillance and how it can impact them as well.

I have to say it's enjoyable. Is it too late? Probably, I guess we'll see, but it is refreshing to hear the other side of the spectrum suddenly concerned about massive government overreach and destruction of privacy.

sbelskie2• 4 years ago

Do you have a “reasonable” bill in mind? I can’t really see much of anything getting 60 votes in the senate.

Blackstrat2• 4 years ago

Something between France and Britain, i.e., abortion cutoff somewhere between 14 (France) and 24 weeks (British). Make it a clean bill. Leave out late term, identity and gender politics, etc. The bill would pull 60 votes, IF AND ONLY IF, anyone cared about a woman having the right to an abortion. They do not.

The danger of license plate readers in post-Roe America

Related Stories