CBP is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with suspicious travel patterns

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-border-patrol-surveillance-drivers-ice-trump-9f5d05469ce8c629d6fecf32d32098cd

by jjwiseman • 8 months ago

838 820 8 months ago

apnews.com

themafia3• 8 months ago

Drive a rental car with California plates through Arizona on eastward and you're likely to find this out first hand.

They'll of course pretend that they just saw you commit a minor infraction and that's why you were pulled over.

mothballed6• 8 months ago

When i was building a house next to the border, I drove from the border north every week, but was astonishingly never flagged at the internal checkpoints (ive been brutalized by cbp at the actual border before under false drug smuggling accusations). I also have a lot of foreign, brown 'illegal' looking family (us citizens) whom I'd drive up/down the border regularly through CBP checkpoints as they helped us build.

The fact i was never stopped makes me even more terrified of a panopticon. Is their surveillance that bad -- or that good?

ahmeneeroe-v24• 8 months ago

the fact i was never stopped makes me even more terrified of a panopticon. Is their surveillance that bad -- or that good?

"I'm terrified that this panopticon so bad that it doesn't see anything"

stevenjgarner7• 8 months ago

Drove a new Hyundai with dealer plates from AZ to Minnesota and got pulled over by Bethany, MO city police on I-35 in northern MO with no probable cause other than window tint being too dark. They tore the car apart certain that I was muling drugs (removed seats, body panels, etc). Took 6 hours. Never found anything and left me with "we know you have committed a crime, we just cannot find it, but you will get caught". I had to put the car back together myself in the dark.

Retired age men driving dealer plate cars eastbound onto I-80 in Nebraska out of Colorado from I-76 get stopped ALL THE TIME as potential drug mules.

dylan6047• 8 months ago

I'm confused. Are you saying they disassembled your car right there where you were pulled over? They had the tools on hand to do this? They didn't tow your car to a shop to have it searched? I've seen many many a car stop get searched by hand and/or with canine. Not once have I ever seen removal of seats/paneling/etc on the side of the road. So this is a bit much to take on first read without further questions

LocalH3• 8 months ago

The cruelty is the point

mzs2• 8 months ago

This happened to me, in East Germany. I'm sorry it happens now in the Land of the Free.

kylehotchkiss• 8 months ago

The more this flyover-state mentality policing continues (obvious civil asset forfeiture fishing - dealers might be carrying cash from a previous sale, etc), the less people are going to drive through them, further depriving these states of a revenue source. Of course, this mentality could be voted out by the residents of these states, but I'm not optimistic.

pureagave• 8 months ago

Every rental car I've rented in California seems to have Florida plates and every U-haul I've rented in the country has Arizona plates. I don't know that the issuing state matters. The Article content suggests the main issue is taking multiple short trips to the boarder not driving across a state.

MisterTea2• 8 months ago

They register the vehicles in states where it's cheaper. It used to be that a lot of people with trailers in New England registered them in Maine because you were(are?) not required to insure the trailer OR live in the same state to register.

hypeatei6• 8 months ago

The idea of a federal agent stopping you for a traffic infraction is insane on its face. That'd be very rare, if not unheard of, in normal times no? How would they charge you? Are there federal laws on the books for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt?

themafia3• 8 months ago

Look into "dual sworn" officers. Although I've seen a few investigations which show that the federal officers will just send a text message, on a private phone, to uniformed officers when they want them to "check something out."

mothballed6• 8 months ago

Even worse feds will use local cops as fodder to pull over actual murderous criminals on traffic infractions, not knowing what they are dealing with. They then let the local cops take the risk and come by with their meal team 6 squad afterwards.

https://youtu.be/rH6bsr61vrw

devilbunny• 8 months ago

The US Park Police can and do enforce basic traffic regulations in national parks - which includes some roads, like the Blue Ridge Parkway, that are “linear parks”. In respect of the fact that these roads are often used by local traffic, they will generally permit things that would be legal under the law of the state you are in (e.g., concealed firearm carry, so long as it’s in the car and not brought into a ranger station or other building on the federal property).

outside1234• 8 months ago

This makes me want to do this just to jam up the system

asdff• 8 months ago

And in California you can drive with no plates at all and seemingly never have any issues.

qingcharles2• 8 months ago

Drove a DeLorean from Chicago to LA and back. Got pulled over 4 times on the way there and 7 times on the way back. All for made up infractions just so they could get photos.

duxup3• 8 months ago

This dragnet style data monitoring is illegal when it comes to phones, it probably should be illegal when it comes to cameras too.

kgwxd• 8 months ago

We already know they're doing it with phones too, laws don't apply to them.

bigyabai2• 8 months ago

Nonsense, I have it on good authority that Privacy Is A Human Right or somesuch.

stevenjgarner7• 8 months ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45945960

Schiendelman2• 8 months ago

So how do we do that? Is some organization working on it with a plausible theory of change?

duxup3• 8 months ago

The phone rulings came from court cases. So sadly it has to reach a case, an in the meantime other folks are hurt with no recourse.

mothballed6• 8 months ago

License plates aren't compatible with the 4th amendment, and this only becomes more obvious with time.

Terr_• 8 months ago

Part of the problem is that you're simply not allowed to sue the people who are misusing the technology to violate the level of privacy everyone actually does expect in public.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/you-should-have-right-...

giantg24• 8 months ago

No, the license plates are not the problem. It's the scanning/recording of them that is.

License plates provide basically the same info as the title to the car or your house. They only supply addition information, such as location when they are recorded somewhere. With things like facial recognition, you don't need the plates to track movement (although it is easier).

The real problem is public surveillance identifying/tracking individuals.

walletdrainer3• 8 months ago

The idea of having titles for cars seems fundamentally weird too. We manage fine in most of the rest of the world without any special government paperwork establishing the owner of a vehicle.

ruined5• 8 months ago

it seems more feasible to get rid of the license plates than to control public or private imaging and analytics of the license plates.

pavel_lishin3• 8 months ago

I want to hear out your point more, but by that logic, neither is walking around without a mask, or using a transit pass, or paying for things with a credit card.

mothballed6• 8 months ago

LP are compelled search of your papers by police without RAS nor PC.

bitexploder4• 8 months ago

People may not understand how deep this goes. With municipalities eagerly allowing companies like Flock to hoover up license plates and centrally aggregate this data there is a very strong argument this is true and amounts to 4A violations when considered in total.

Add that many states have laws that are /more/ punishing if you intentionally obscure your plate than simply not having one, what other conclusion can be drawn? The state’s arguments are thin. “Oh we need it to find criminals / vehicles of interest” oh sure, so you get to suck up all our data to protect a few toll roads and track a few supposed criminals. The balance of benefit to society is dubious at best IMO.

themafia3• 8 months ago

Steve Jobs famously used to get a new car every 6 months, because in California, you don't have to put plates on it for that amount of time. So he could essentially permanently drive around without an attached license plate.

I think about this from time to time.

LgWoodenBadger• 8 months ago

Suspicious behavior is not a crime, and law enforcement is required to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to detain people.

lawlessone• 8 months ago

and law enforcement is required to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to detain people.

They can just say you're not a citizen.

engeljohnb• 8 months ago

It's the oldest trick in the fascist book. You can't be a tyrant when the people are used to the idea that citizens have inalienable rights, so you slowly chip away at who counts as a "citizen."

anonym293• 8 months ago

Unfortunately, law enforcement often isn't subject to US law in practice, only in theory. And even on those few occasions where they are held to account for crimes against the public, the settlement is paid out with the public's own money rather than the officer's.

awesome_dude11• 8 months ago

Devil's advocate: If the officer is acting within the policy/training they are given by their employer (and that includes not being told to not do something) then it's the employer's fault, and we (the taxpayer/ultimate employer) are liable for that.

iso16312• 8 months ago

If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear

(/s incase it isn't obvious)

stevenjgarner7• 8 months ago

Please watch "Don't Talk to the Police" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36371237)

toomanyrichies• 8 months ago

incase it isn’t obvious

You’re right that it should be. And in a sane world it would be. Yet here we are anyway.

ortusdux2• 8 months ago

It's borderline impossible to drive from one location to another and not break a law. Some argue that this is by design.

m00x• 8 months ago

How? I've never been arrested in my life because I follow laws, so I'm unfamiliar how you can just accidentally break a law. Is this an American thing?

burnt-resistor2• 8 months ago

It's a feature, not a bug because it's a weapon of authoritarians wearing badges on up the government punishment pipeline.

Furthermore, in the areas of business owner and employee it's even worse because of the vague, contradictory, and expansive commercial code plus the rest of applicable city, county, state, and federal laws that apply too that sometimes criminalize trivial transgressions with occasionally excessive penalties. There's a whole book about it: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

I'm not one for no regulations or "all gubberment bad", far from it; the core problem is the almost complete lack of effective guardrails on malicious enforcement and prosecution.

duxup3• 8 months ago

"Computer said you did something wrong, explain yourself."

codegeek4• 8 months ago

Guilty until proven innocent.

jabroni_salad2• 8 months ago

I commute to a different state for work and when one of them legalized weed I once got pulled over and dog-searched for "driving exactly the speed limit." When they want to go fishing there is absolutely nothing that will stop them.

Schiendelman2• 8 months ago

But once in court, you would probably get that thrown out. The key problem is that we haven't instituted consequences for that sort of police behavior.

LordGrey• 8 months ago

I had an acquaintance who was a county constable. He once told me, "Let me watch you drive down the road, any road, for 30 seconds and I will be able to find a valid reason to pull you over." He implied that some part of their training was focused on exactly that.

One data point, and a highly regional one at that, I know.

xdennis3• 8 months ago

and when one of them legalized weed

There is no US state in which weed is legal. Some states don't enforce it, but you are breaking federal law when you smoke it.

rileymat22• 8 months ago

From the sound of the article, they flag the person for local police that then can almost always find a reason to pull someone over as a pretext.

frank_nitti• 8 months ago

Police that I’ve spoken to will readily confirm this. They consider profiling, not necessarily racial, an important part of patrolling. If they decide you look the part, they will find a way within several minutes/miles of watching.

stevenjgarner7• 8 months ago

Not true. Section 215 of Patriot Act expanded surveillance powers, information-sharing, and intelligence authorities, allowing the FBI to obtain “business records” relevant to counterterrorism, no probable cause required. This does not specifically authorize detention, but show me the "business records" of any enterprise that would not raise questions requiring 48-hour hold.

avidiax3• 8 months ago

law enforcement is required to have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime in order to detain people.

In theory, yes.

In practice, yes, with many caveats.

LE doesn't have to articulate that reasonable suspicion at the time of the detention. They can come up with that suspicion years later when it comes to deciding in court whether the evidence from that traffic stop can be suppressed. This is assuming that the warrantless search even found anything, the suspect didn't accept a plea deal in lieu of going to trial, and the charges weren't dropped just before trial.

A working system for this sort of thing would be more like:

* The officer needs to record that reasonable suspicion at the time of the detention.

* All of these reasonable suspicion detentions are recorded, along with outcomes. This becomes evidence for reasonability presented in court. An officer with a low hit rate suggests that the suspicion in generally unreasonable, and they are just fishing.

* A 20 minute timer is started at the start of a traffic stop. If the officer can't articulate the reasonable suspicion at the 20 minute mark, detention is considered plainly illegal, and qualified immunity does not apply. This prevents keeping people on the roadside for a hour waiting for the dog to show up.

* Similarly, the hit rate of the police dogs needs to be recorded, and low hit rate should make any evidence from them inadmissible.

For any of this to happen, we would need to start giving standing to supposedly "unharmed" suspects that just had their vehicle torn apart and hours of their lives wasted without charge. Currently, the courts seem to think that a little wait at a traffic stop and an fruitless illegal search that is never seen in the courtroom is no damage at all.

w10-1• 8 months ago

If the officer can't articulate the reasonable suspicion at the 20 minute mark

Wouldn't the suspicion -- the observed fact and presumed implication -- need to be recorded before the traffic stop?

codegeek4• 8 months ago

Assuming they do the questioning in good faith. When they are ordered to "find something", you are already at a disadvantage as a regular person. I mostly have good interactions when stopped but had my share of bad faith actors and it will be a really bad day if you happen to come across those especially in current climate.

dylan6047• 8 months ago

While suspicious behavior is not a crime, it is certainly going to be used as probable cause. How would you think it to be any other way? See something, say something is nothing but using suspicious behavior

andy99• 8 months ago

The problem with lots of laws, often poorly thought out or framed, is that anyone can be breaking them any time, allowing law enforcement to target people or groups they don’t like with impunity. Drug laws are an obvious one, but so are traffic laws (with ever more rules about distracted driving etc, “drunk” driving ), things like loitering, all the stupid anti-free speech laws in places like the uk.

People get whipped up to support laws but don’t see that more is just worse, especially the petty ones, even if they notionally correct for some bad behaviour, because they allow selective enforcement.

sneak2• 8 months ago

Yes, but suspicious behavior (of a crime) is indeed often reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime. Suspicious behavior is almost always one of the main, if not the only, thing establishing RAS for a Terry stop.

franciscator• 8 months ago

Use AI to keep your driving pattern non suspicious ...

pavel_lishin3• 8 months ago

How, exactly, do you propose to do that?

lo_zamoyski• 8 months ago

Ask the AI. It will tell you. :)

esalman• 8 months ago

Palantir might have a solution for you.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

Yeah and if you have your cell phone with you, license plates readers are irrelevant.

Fun fact, the Austin bomber was caught because publically available user data used for advertising, as gathered by a bunch of 3d party apps, allowed a cross reference of cellphones in vicinity within certain time ranges, which narrowed the suspect pool to very few people from which they were able to start their investigation.

sahaj• 8 months ago

But the criminals and illegals and the worst of the worst and the drugs. Think of the children that are being fed illegal drugs thru tubes put in by the trans-national trans gangs.

bomewish• 8 months ago

Wouldn’t it be trivial for serious criminals - like cartels etc - to just use different vehicles?

Finnucane• 8 months ago

Sure, but policies that just generally terrorize people aren't primarily about actually catching criminals.

nabla93• 8 months ago

65% of the US population, 200 million Americans, live within the 100-Mile "Constitution-Free Zone".

Supreme Court has established that some established constitutional provisions do not apply at the U.S. border, and protections against governmental privacy incursions are significantly reduced.

The border search exception applies within 100 miles (160 km) of the border of the United States, including borders with Mexico and Canada but also coastlines.

1121redblackgo• 8 months ago

What is the rationale for 100 miles? Curious if anyone knows, or if its an arbitrary number a lawmaker decided?

nabla93• 8 months ago

The 1946 statute gave CBP the authority to stop and search all vehicles within a “reasonable distance”. CBP defined the reasonable to be 100 miles and it stuck. It's just federal regulation interpreting the law and courts have blessed it.

dboreham• 8 months ago

Supreme Court rulings it seems. This is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357#

But it only says "any reasonable distance". SCOTUS appears to have come up with the 100 mile limit in various cases over time.

tptacek7• 8 months ago

This is mostly a canard, kept alive by fundraising pages at ACLU, but contradicted directly by current pages on the ACLU's site. It feels useful on a message board to call out things like this, but it actually hurts people in the US, who deserve to know that they do not surrender their 4th Amendment rights simply by dint of living within 100 miles of Lake Erie.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041697

(There's a really good Penn State law review article on that thread).

nabla93• 8 months ago

(really good Penn State law review article on that thread)

Yes, and what it says is this:

The Supreme Court has decided that there is a reduced expectation of privacy at the border, holding that the government’s interest in monitoring and controlling entrants outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. Thus, routine searches without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion are considered inherently reasonable and automatically justified in that particular context.32 Fourth Amendment rights are therefore significantly circumscribed at the border, and CBP is given an expansive authority to randomly—and without suspicion—search, seize, and detain individuals and property at border crossings that law enforcement officers would not have in other circumstances.

The constitution free, means that constitutional rights are reduced within the area.

vel0city• 8 months ago

In the end people are being swept upt under what seems to be an obviously unconstitutional thing and yet the courts continue to shrug.

I agree with the Penn State Law Review analysis in your link. Sadly that's not the reality of the world we live in. You're burying your head in the sand pointing to a document that suggest how things should be compared to what has actually been happening. In the end, people are being stopped and nothing is being done about it. Some paper put out by a law review isn't ending the persucation that is happening no matter how hard you ignore it.

Words on some paper mean nothing compared to the actual actions of man.

djoldman• 8 months ago

Folks may be talking past each other on the "100 mile" issue.

The dissonance arises from these contradictions:

1. Federal regulations specifically state "100 air miles" with respect to the US Border patrol: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/part-287/section-287.1#...

2. The US Border Patrol has lost court cases for things they have done within those 100 miles, essentially saying they shouldn't have done those things.

An informal interpretation of this is that the US Federal Government and BP generally view the powers of the BP as more expansive than the judicial branch, possibly including the legislative.

michael1999• 8 months ago

This whole discussion feels very cute when Kavanaugh-stops are going on right now. Like we're discussing the fine points of white-tie dress while sitting around in sweatpants. ICE is snatching citizens off the streets. The constitution is not self-enforcing.

wbxp99• 8 months ago

While the U.S. Border Patrol primarily operates within 100 miles of the border, it is legally allowed “to operate anywhere in the United States,” the agency added.

tptacek7• 8 months ago

The Border Patrol probably is allowed to operate anywhere within the United States, but being in the Border Patrol doesn't (at least statutorily) give them any magic powers; in particular, you don't get "border search authority" by being a part of CBP, but rather by being any law enforcement officer confronting someone who you reasonably believe crossed the border recently.

codethief• 8 months ago

…and including international airports (and thus all major cities) if I'm informed correctly.

jl6• 8 months ago

“Constitution-Free Zone”

Now there’s a trumped-up charge.

np-• 8 months ago

Border Patrol is doing an operation in Charlotte, NC right now. That is well over 100 miles from any border or coast. So 100 miles itself is fiction, they can just do whatever they want. Who’s gonna stop them?

closeparen• 8 months ago

International airports count.

sys_64738• 8 months ago

We need all these exceptions to the constitution to get a hard reset. SCOTUS has failed to uphold the constitution.

dragonwriter5• 8 months ago

It is not an exception to the Constitution, it's a decision about what “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment means.

Note that the default (but not universal) equirement to get a warrant for a search or seizure (and the imputation that for many warrantless instances of either, probable cause is still required) is also such an interpretation; the text of the Amendment doesn’t say either of those things, but they have been inferred by the Supreme Court to be generally the case from the juxtaposition of the reasonableness requirement for searches and seizures and the probable cause requirement for warrants.

While the Bill of Rights (and protections in later amendments) is sometimes treated like a bit of divine revelation, much of it is intentionally (to kick the can down the road on resolving disputes at the time) imprecisely worded, heavily compromised, legislative enactment by imperfect legislators, with sentences that are disjoint and where any meaningful application requires reading connections into the the text that aren’t explicit, as well as devising concrete operationalizations for vague terms like “unreasonable” or “due process”.

stronglikedan3• 8 months ago

This is FUD. Others have already pointed out why.

tempodox2• 8 months ago

Isn’t every international airport also a border?

wslh• 8 months ago

In Saudi Arabia Uber reports all trips to the kingdom [1].

[1] https://blog.careem.com/posts/local-regulatory-data-sharing-...

Ms-J2• 8 months ago

That's good to know and I wouldn't use the service in that country after learning this.

It's always good to know how different countries try to violate us in different ways.

ericbarrett2• 8 months ago

One of the most striking things about this article were the photos of the disguised cameras, especially the ones dressed up as traffic cones and electrical boxes.

dylan6047• 8 months ago

How is that striking? We've had nanny cams with cameras hidden in teddy bears and other items for a really long time now. That's like saying you're shocked cops go undercover and do not ID themselves as cops.

MattDamonSpace• 8 months ago

I think most Americans would be struck by the revelation that the government has hidden cameras in traffic cones

hypeatei6• 8 months ago

It's been fascinating watching the party of "small government" turn into one that supports ever expanding powers of a three letter agency whose job is supposed to be patrolling the border. It's like a new 9/11 Patriot act moment, except it's only one side supporting it this time.

arealaccount• 8 months ago

I don't know what you mean by "turn into" it's always been that way

hypeatei6• 8 months ago

"turn into" is referring to the mask off nature of it all. Before, they might be a little embarrassed or pretend they still stand for those principles. But all I've seen are conservatives explaining why it might be technically allowed or straight up cheering it on.

codegeek4• 8 months ago

There is nothing small Govt anymore. Both parties are the same when it comes to extending Govt's power (just for different reasons). It is just a talking point now.

smallmancontrov• 8 months ago

State's Rights (to own slaves) vs No State Rights (to shelter slaves) is probably the most infamous example, and it's from a while ago.

pnw2• 8 months ago

None of this is new. The article states that CBP got authorization to track license plates in 2017 and concerns about law enforcement use of ALPR date back to at least 2010. The ACLU sued the LAPD in 2013 on ALPR.

spicyusername• 8 months ago

I mean, the last 20 years is only ~8% of the history of the U.S., so all things considered those changes are pretty "new".

dragonwriter5• 8 months ago

The particular manner in which it is being used can be different even if the fact that is being used by CBP is not.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

CBP got authorization to track license plates in 2017

who was president in 2017?

root_axis• 8 months ago

The part that's new is people being detained for "suspicious" traffic patterns.

vlovich123• 8 months ago

The party of small government is a slogan. It’s the same party that expanded domestic FBI surveillance, expanded intelligence agencies and lots of other things. It’s also the party that is intimately interested in what private citizens do in their bedroom (sodomy and condom laws) and what medical decisions doctors and patients can undertake.

csours3• 8 months ago

I really wish we had a (lower case) republican or conservative party in the US.

I hope we survive this fear driven over-stimulated era of politics.

riffic2• 8 months ago

hamdingers3• 8 months ago

We have a lower case conservative, pro-status-quo party. The Democrats.

Even now all they can talk about is returning to normal (where normal describes the conditions that led to the current state).

tootie• 8 months ago

At this point, what would that party even be? Their only genuine appeal is to Christian fundamentalists who prioritize banning abortion and LGBTQ rights. There hasn't been a coherent domestic or foreign policy from them in decades.

potato373284229• 8 months ago

Small C conservative would be what these days? Iraq invading weed dealer arresting homosexual hating mid-00s "we call ourselves neoliberals bur are nothing of the sort"? Or their counterparts on the other side of the isle who are happy to build up the police state thinking it can do no wrong or happy to regulate the shit out of everything uncritically deluding themselves into thinking it won't become a handout for moneyed interests at the expense of upstarts?

As bad as shit is now I think that might actually be worse.

While people haven't yet suffered enough to agree to compromise and just wind the whole mistake down, there is a huge consensus on both sides of the isle these days that we have too much government swinging it's weight around in pursuit of things that are bad.

riffic2• 8 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wilhoit_(composer)

ahmeneeroe-v24• 8 months ago

Very similar feeling to watching the liberal/progressive party fangirl the FBI and the intel community

edit: in reality the times have changed and so has the country and the parties. All of these pre-2008 stereotypes are stupid and not useful anymore.

kelipso4• 8 months ago

Seriously. Where were all these people when the Democrats overreached into every aspect of our lives?

Apparently the only criticism is an accusation of hypocrisy for calling themselves the party of small government. Nothing wrong with the actions themselves apparently! Lol.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

The problem is that the "both sides are bad" people just uniformly vote Republican. Its the cope of understanding that your side is batshit insane, so you have to pretend that the current state of affairs doesn't actually matter, and the problem goes deeper in the goal of normalizing your party.

The truth is, the only reason not to trust the intel community is because of some fringe bullshit you heard on Joe Rogan.

sleepybrett5• 8 months ago

Yeah the emerging 'The Bullwark' wing of the democrat party. Never trumper republicans trying as hard as they can to move the right flank of the democrat party into the bush era republican gradient so that they can pretend that they didn't lose their own party.

EnPissant7• 8 months ago

Pretty sure Republicans always supported defending the border from drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

peterashford2• 8 months ago

Everyone supports that?

lesuorac3• 8 months ago

Gary, Indiana does not have a border with a foreign country so why do CBP need to monitor drivers there?

bdangubic2• 8 months ago

lol

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

Is that why Trump killed the CBP funding bill in the beginning of 2024?

hypeatei6• 8 months ago

Ah yes, illegal immigration is like the new "terrorism"... everything must be done to stop it which includes giving CBP and ICE unchecked power.

JohnTHaller• 8 months ago

It's the same as the Republican slogans of being the party of "fiscal responsibility" despite under-performing the Democratic party in nearly all financial metrics and constantly blowing up the deficit or being the party of "family values" while having leaders and 'respected' voices who are the complete opposite.

wlesieutre• 8 months ago

Don't forget "states' rights"

b112• 8 months ago

While you're not wrong, not sure it applies here. This is an all-party thing:

Started about a decade ago to fight illegal border-related activities and the trafficking of both drugs and people, it has expanded over the past five years.

Some of the lawsuits (cited in article) to fight this, and illegal pull overs, go back years.

Really? It shows how this tech can be used in ways you don't like, when your party is no longer in power. How whatever laws you pass, surveillance you enact, powers you give, aren't just for you.

But also your political adversary.

potato373284229• 8 months ago

Started 25yr ago when some dudes with poor aviation skills caused the checkbook to open up and the war on drugs was still going strong.

And even then it was smoldering for a long time before that. A good "start" point is probably the creation of the FBI.

pfannkuchen5• 8 months ago

Small government without control of who comes in is borderline anarchy, and they never claimed to be for anarchy. Small government internally requires border controls, and if the border controls failed in the past do you expect them to just shrug? I can see disagreeing with them, easily, I just don’t see obvious hypocrisy like you are suggesting.

praptak• 8 months ago

Small government without [big thing I happen to like] is [bad thing] therefore it's okay to make the government big in [the aspects I like] and I don't see any hipocrisy in that.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

Its been proven many times over that the majority of "illegal" immigrants, whether they come US and either overstay their allowance, or manage to skirt by on refugee status, are all predominately doing it for financial reasons, willing to work jobs for lower pay that Americans will never do, which is a huge benefit for economy.

This idea that border control somehow failed is a lie sold to you by republicans. Also Trump killed the CBP funding bill in early 2024 that would have addressed a lot of issues.

int_19h2• 8 months ago

We're literally discussing a mass surveillance dragnet throughout the country (not just at the border) here; the kind of stuff that is normally reserved for dystopias in fiction.

To argue that it is somehow okay because it enables "small government" to exist is very much in the spirit of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". When thugs in uniform stop and interrogate Americans on the roads because their movement patterns are "suspicious", there's nothing small about it.

CGMthrowaway3• 8 months ago

Your comment feels unsubstantiated. What do you mean by that? Or do you just mean the current government has Republicans at the top.

Can you share data on how people of one party are supporting ALPR and the other are against it? I was looking for a public poll on this question and couldn't find one.

edit: Why am I being downvoted?

hypeatei6• 8 months ago

Polling this year consistently shows that Republicans support all the actions being taken with respect to immigration under this admin. Sorry I don't have any links handy at the moment, but you can see it in this thread: "too many people crossed under Biden, look what you made us do!"

BeetleB• 8 months ago

The same party that gave us the Patriot Act?

They've not been "small government" since forever.

havblue• 8 months ago

While 62 house Democrats voted against it, Patriot Act had bipartisan support, which is why Obama never repealed it.

bluGill5• 8 months ago

They have been the party of small government when the democrats are in power since forever. When they have power though...

colejhudson• 8 months ago

Hard to blame this squarely on the Republicans. Access to private license plate readers was granted under the Biden admin, and no doubt each of the last four administrations played some part.

To me, the CPB and ICE are looking more and more like an American Gestapo.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

Access to private license plate readers was granted under the Biden admin,

Nope.

Nice try tho. The "both sides bad" argument used to work, not anymore.

FireBeyond8• 8 months ago

Access to private license plate readers was granted under the Biden admin

Apropos of anything else, this access was granted in 2017, and Biden might be surprised to learn he was President then, not Trump.

darknavi• 8 months ago

If you're interested in some reflection on that, What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004) by Thomas Frank explores some of this, but centered around Kansas. Pretty interesting (and frustrating) stuff.

supportengineer• 8 months ago

The logical conclusion of all this oppression is that everyone will just stay home, and go out no more than necessary, and spend no money that isn't absolutely necessary.

Is that a win for the oligarchs?

fhdkweig• 8 months ago

It is for the ones that do deliveries. I never looked up the numbers, but my gut feeling is that Amazon did well during the pandemic.

SilverElfin• 8 months ago

Well at least post 9/11 unconstitutional escalation required legislation and the creation of agencies like the DHS and TSA. Now, a political culture that is willing to break norms and abuse technicalities is silently expanding powers to the max, and that’s far more insidious. But maybe it’ll result in a strengthened democracy in the long term if new laws or amendments are passed to contain this problem.

potato373284229• 8 months ago

Pepperidge farms remembers when it took a constitutional amendment to ban booze.

cogman109• 8 months ago

except it's only one side supporting it this time.

I wish.

Very early on in this Trump admin there was a bipartisan bill passed which greatly expanded the capabilities of ICE to deport [1]. Democrats have been well aligned with the republicans when it comes to immigration policy. You'll find few that will actually criticize the actions of ICE/DHS.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laken_Riley_Act

wffurr• 8 months ago

156 Democratic congressmen voted no on that bill.

Scubabear682• 8 months ago

To be fair, the current Republican Party bears almost no resemblance to the "classic" Republican Party of....10 years ago.

The Newt and the Tea Party started the slide, normalizing hatred and bombast and FU-politics, and MAGA perfected it.

Whether you love it, hate it, or are indifferent, what you are dealing with now are not really Republicans. They are MAGA-folks. They should really rename themselves the Solipism Party. Nothing matters but the current state of your own head.

And yes, I know parties change and evolve with the times, but I would argue this time is very different.

masklinn• 8 months ago

The current Republican Party is the exact same as 10 years ago, just further along.

10 years ago was basically Trump 1. And 10 years before that was GWB starting the endless wars with an admin outright denying reality. Which Reagan also did. And of course Nixon literally broke into the opposition party’s.

sleepybrett5• 8 months ago

.. 10 years ago. Yes it fucking does, it's just become more brazen. Those are the motherfuckers that passed the patriot act and then reupped it over and over.

tshaddox2• 8 months ago

To be fair, the current Republican Party bears almost no resemblance to the "classic" Republican Party of....10 years ago.

In other aspects, perhaps. But the "small government" or "pro-economy" branding of the Republican Party has been an absurdity for more like 75 years. Democratic administrations have performed better on virtually any conceivable economic metric with very few minor exceptions.

int_19h2• 8 months ago

It's not like those Tea Party folk appeared out of the blue. They grew, but the core constituency has been pandered to by mainstream Republican leadership since at least Nixon.

concinds• 8 months ago

The "old" GOP also loved 3 letter agencies, unitary executive theory, and mass surveillance. They did the Patriot Act. And Scalia hated the 5th Amendment, was weird on the 4th, and dramatically increased police powers.

potato373284229• 8 months ago

The Tea Party, MAGA (and the on the other side of the isle the Bernie bros and whatever their replacement will be) represent pent up demand from the masses to get the current status quo to F-off. So far the status quo has co-opted all these movements.

OhMeadhbh2• 8 months ago

Meh. I think political parties in the states are really there just to make money. Why else would the dems keep pelting you with adds for $5? I think both parties are saying whatever they need to say to convince people to give them cash. The number of people who care about privacy seems smaller than the number of people who want to be entertained by politicians, so it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

throwway1203854• 8 months ago

I've talked to some of these people at the local level and they really believe what they're saying. So I don't really buy your explanation.

John23832• 8 months ago

An interesting fact is that "the border" technically extends 100 miles from any actual border.

Guess how many major metros are in that area.

https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/your-rights-bord...

ncr1002• 8 months ago

To the GOP, lying (in stated intentions "small gov", et al) aligns with their core values:

GOP is the party of capitalism (free-market, laissez-faire). Capitalism is the pursuit of self-interest and the profit motive.

And when the opportunity permits, this creates an ethical incentive structure for lying to be deployed for tactical gain.

thewebguyd7• 8 months ago

You can't even call the GOP the party of capitalism either.

The party that took a 10% stake in Intel to at least partially nationalize it. The party of tariffs, the party of special interest tax loopholes giving taxpayer subsidies to fossil fuels, real estate, and agriculture, the $400 million equity stake in MP materials.

Sure sounds like they are picking winners and losers, the antithesis of free market capitalism.

Lammy4• 8 months ago

There's no need to partisanize this. Why would you immediately turn off half of your possible audience when speaking about an issue that affects everyone equally? San Francisco is covered in Flock cameras just like the ones pictured top-right in the article, and you won't find a more-Democrat-leaning place. One cannot analyze and act on data that does not exist: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/sf-takes-historic-step-to-s...

throwway1203854• 8 months ago

Flock is sort of a new kind of animal in the LPR space. Before that there were a lot of LPR companies out there but none of them were providing data in such a way that law enforcement could do what it's doing. LPR has been in use for tolling and for parking enforcement for decades now. It's the same kind of shell game Ring has been running by putting surveillance cameras on everyone's house and then selling access to law enforcement.

ajross3• 8 months ago

There's no need to partisanize this.

On the contrary, the only way to drive change in a democracy is via partisanship. Demanding we all adhere to an artificial both-sides framing is manufacturing consensus for the status quo. Politicians only change their positions if they think they'll lose votes because of it.

Also, obviously, because the analysis in this case is clearly wrong. This is a 100% partisan issue. Period. There are good guys and bad guys in the story, and if you won't point out who they are you're just running cover for the bad guys.

api• 8 months ago

The party of small government thing hasn't been true for a long time, if it ever was.

Spooky234• 8 months ago

The only thing fascinating is that anyone believed any of that crap.

Everything that Trumpists are doing was peddled in the 1990s by such distinguished figures as Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. Usually with a nauseating appeal to "rule of law". The "surprise", and "this behavior may be the path to authoritarianism" stuff in the NY Times makes it hard to read without an eyeroll.

potato373284229• 8 months ago

This shit comes in waves. Before it was peddled in the 90s it was peddled in the 70s. In the 50s you had the same stuff as well.

neilk• 8 months ago

It has never been about small government. You can just look at the Republican record on deficit spending or military funding to dismiss that. “Small government” was just an acceptable way to say you were for reducing benefits to people deemed undeserving.

There are people who called themselves Republican who started to believe their own propaganda, but it’s never been an empirical fact in the modern era that Republicans acted to reduce government spending in toto.

burnte• 8 months ago

They were never for small government, they just want it crippled enough that it can't regulate them but can still be used against other people.

frumplestlatz• 8 months ago

The “party of small government” has always seen protection of sovereignty and borders as exactly one of the few things a government should actually do.

beeflet14• 8 months ago

The republican party has never represented "small government"

an0malous• 8 months ago

It’s always been tribal, because they suddenly don’t care about government debt, elite pedophile rings, foreign aid, and endless wars either

0xDEAFBEAD2• 8 months ago

The US has a 2-party system. Those parties will tend to be very loose and ideologically diverse coalitions almost by definition.

There is an interesting philosophical issue around these accusations of "distributed hypocrisy". It would be one thing if you were pointing to a particular individual who took an inconsistent position. But if two loosely affiliated individuals disagree, that's not necessarily hypocritical. Even a single individual may change their mind on an issue over time.

philipwhiuk• 8 months ago

large government, small support.

stronglikedan3• 8 months ago

Except these have been around long enough for both parties to have done something about it, so it's de facto supported by both parties.

tempodox2• 8 months ago

… agency whose job is supposed to be patrolling the border.

They are patrolling the border. The border between desired and undesired citizens.

Nobody lifted a finger when “the privacy violations are only used against the bad guys”. Now it looks like it’s your turn to be declared the bad guy.

phendrenad2• 8 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

csours3• 8 months ago

100 Mile Border Zone - https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

Your rights are limited in interactions with CBP, or to state the inverse: CBP have claimed more powers than traditional law enforcement. This has been true for quite a while; they have at various times been more and less careful about your rights while exercising those powers. They are being less careful now.

codegeek4• 8 months ago

"Suddenly, drivers find themselves pulled over — often for reasons cited such as speeding, failure to signal, the wrong window tint or even a dangling air freshener blocking the view. They are then aggressively questioned and searched, with no inkling that the roads they drove put them on law enforcement’s radar."

Wow, this is incredibly concerning. So they can pull me over, lie about why and then try to manufacture something ?

tclancy• 8 months ago

Yes, it's very important to let them lie about it or else they will have to reveal the actual giant surveillance state and all the technology behind it and that would cause us to lose WWII.

Oh wait, I think we just did, given what the Coast Guard has been up to today. https://www.juneauindependent.com/post/coast-guard-says-swas...

LocalH3• 8 months ago

It should be illegal for law enforcement not currently participating in a proper sting operation to lie to the person they wish to investigate. But it's not.

FuriouslyAdrift2• 8 months ago

It is in some jurisdictions. In Illinois and Oregon, laws have been passed that prohibit law enforcement officers from using deception when dealing with suspects under the age of 18. Other states, such as Washington, Connecticut, Delaware, and New York, are considering similar legislation that may extend these prohibitions to all individuals being interrogated.

https://www.timesleaderonline.com/uncategorized/2022/11/poli...

adolph• 8 months ago

Wow, this is incredibly concerning. So they can pull me over, lie about why and then try to manufacture something?

  Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or 
  separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to limit 
  disclosure as to the origins of an investigation.
  
  In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer 
  obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's 
  protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on 
  to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under 
  the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

avidiax3• 8 months ago

Wait until you hear about parallel construction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-paral...

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

Wow, this is incredibly concerning.

Well, maybe now you understand that when people were saying Trump is an actual fascist, it wasn't just memes.

Its only gonna get worse. At some point, CBP is gonna shoot someone, nothing is gonna happen, and that will be the turning point of when they can just arbitrarily start shooting citizens with no repercussion.

If you don't have a plan to GTFO the country by now, you are behind.

r2_pilot• 8 months ago

Not CBP but see Carlos Jimenez for an example of what's currently happening.

standardUser• 8 months ago

often for reasons cited such as speeding, failure to signal, the wrong window tint or even a dangling air freshener

Police shouldn't be able to pull someone over for an air freshener or tinted windows. They can send a fix-it ticket without wasting the time and resources, and without causing the inconvenience or diversions in traffic. And, as a private citizen, I strongly prefer the police have the minimal necessary powers to detain me.

simonw7• 8 months ago

License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today.

It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates (sometimes by driving around parking lots with a camera), build a database of what plate was seen where at what time, then sell access to both law enforcement and I believe private investigators.

Want to know if your spouse is having an affair? Those databases may well have the answer.

Here is a Wired story from 2014 about Vigilant Solutions, founded in 2009: https://www.wired.com/2014/05/license-plate-tracking/

I believe Vigilant only provide access to law enforcement, but Digital Recognition Network sell access to others as well: https://drndata.com/about/

Good Vice story about that: https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-tracked-someone-with-licen...

baggachipz• 8 months ago

Flock is extremely egregious.

https://deflock.me

vkou2• 8 months ago

WA state has figured out a solution to the Flock problem.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules...

If they are going to be used by the government and law enforcement, they are clearly government-collected data about you - and thus, are subject to (the state equivalent of) a FOIA request.

This puts an onerous compliance requirement on Flock and the ciites that allow it to operate.

Hopefully, WA's state legislature will decline to give them any exemptions, which will kill that company's operations in the state.

---

Among other things, these cameras have been illegally used to spy on people who were getting an abortion in WA. Flock's executives (and the engineers who implemented that feature) belong in prison.

Lammy4• 8 months ago

Relevant federal payola

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary...

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyis...

joe5150• 8 months ago

Flock has a series of bizarre, obviously LLM-generated blog posts trying to convince the public that they are working "toward a future where compliance and community trust walk hand in hand"....

[1] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-compliance-doe...

[2] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-the-work-alrea...

[3] https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/policy-pulse-transparency-c...

c23gooey• 8 months ago

See also the latest Benn Jordan video on youtube [1]

1 - https://youtu.be/uB0gr7Fh6lY?si=lu_nCW8A94ziP9YW

smoser• 8 months ago

Toyota was working on a feature for its cars that would report license plates from amber alerts to authorities. https://x.com/SteveMoser/status/1493990907661766664?s=20

BobaFloutist3• 8 months ago

That would frankly be a narrow, reasonable application.

The problem is the database building. Law enforcement queries should all be forced to be 1. Require a warrant or an active emergency and 2. Be strictly real-time, for a set duration, and store no information about cars that are not subject to the warrant.

If either of those is not hardcoses into the technology, I don't want my local police department to be allowed to use license plate scanners whatsoever.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

I mean, its possible to subpoena cellphone records and geographically track your movement based on which cell towers you connect to.

But regardless, I always find it funny that most of the rhetoric for personal liberties revolves around being able to do illegal things.

simonw7• 8 months ago

That is exactly my point: no subpoena or warrant is required for access to license plate scan databases.

holmesworcester• 8 months ago

The most important reason for privacy is that without it, social norms calcify.

If a norm is outdated, oppressive, or maladaptive in some way and needs to be changed, it becomes very difficult to change the norm if you cannot build a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm.

It is even harder if you cannot even talk about building a critical mass of people practicing the replacement norm.

For many norms, like the taboo on homosexuality which was strong in the US and Europe until recently and is still strong in many places today, the taboo and threat of ostracism are strong enough that people need privacy to build critical mass to change the norm even when the taboo is not enshrined in law, or the law is not usually enforced. This was the mechanism of "coming out of the closet": build critical mass for changing the norm in private, and then take the risk of being in public violation once enough critical mass had been organized that it was plausible to replace the old oppressive/maladaptive norm with a new one.

But yes, obsolete/maladaptive/oppressive norms are often enshrined in law too.

thewebguyd7• 8 months ago

revolves around being able to do illegal things.

The problem is, what is legal today might not be tomorrow. Especially depending on the regime in power at the time.

Mass surveillance can implicate someone in a crime if later on some regime decides that what they did or where they went is now a crime when it wasn't before.

Remember the push back against Apple's proposed client side scanning of photos to look for CSAM? What happens when the hash database starts including things like political memes, or other types of photos. What used to be legal is now not, and you get screwed because of the surveillance state.

Absolutely no data should be available without a warrant and subpoena, full stop. Warrants issued by a court, not a secret national security letter with a gag order either. Warrants only issued with true probable cause, not "acting suspicious."

Spooky234• 8 months ago

For good reason. Being "investigated" for illegal things is a key way to violate personal liberties. If you believe in freedom, you have to accept that some people who are not nice people benefit from those human rights. You may find yourself an "enemy of the people" for a variety of reasons.

In most cases, cell tower data is sold in the open market in aggregate. A commercial real estate developer can buy datasets that provide the average household income of passers by by hour of the day and month of the year, for example. The police can request tower ping data, generally by warrant. There are exceptions, especially in the federal space.

The Feds have a massive surveillance network. Every journey on the interstates between Miami and the border crossings near Buffalo, Watertown, Plattsburgh, Vermont and Maine all the way down to Miami is logged and tracked by a DEA program, which has likely expanded. You can get breadcrumbs of LPR hits and passenger photographs throughout the journey.

Flock is a cancer, as it is deployed by individual jurisdictions (often with Federal grants) and makes each node part of a larger network. They help solve and will likely eliminate some categories of crime. But the laws governing use are at best weak and at worse an abomination. Local cops abuse it by doing the usual dumb cop stuff -- stalking girlfriends, checking up on acquaintances. The Federal government is able to tap in to make it a node in their panopticon. Unlike government systems, stuff like user ids aren't really governed well and the abuses are mostly unauditable.

The private camera networks are a problem for commercial abuse and Federal abuse. They aren't as risky for local PDs because they generally require a paper trail to use. Corrupt/abusive cops don't like accountability.

onlypassingthru• 8 months ago

Only a review of your dossier by the House Un-American Activities Committee† can verify you have not demonstrated any subversive behavior, citizen.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_C...

into_ruin• 8 months ago

[M]ost of the rhetoric for personal liberties revolves around being able to do illegal things.

What are you basing that on? Conjecture?

ComplexSystems2• 8 months ago

Don't new cars just directly record your location as you drive them?

sleepybrett5• 8 months ago

One wonders if any given tesla is harvesting the plates the other cars it see in traffic as well.

nmeagent3• 8 months ago

Do you think that corporate erosion of (or outright hostility to) privacy is somehow a compelling reason to deny rights to those of us who make different choices in an attempt to protect them? Just because some people decided to buy a smartphone on wheels, do I have to suffer and have my freedom of movement narrowed and protection from arbitrary inspection by government agents denied?

drnick14• 8 months ago

They do, but it is relatively easy to nuke the onboard modem to permanently disconnect your car. Unfortunately, most people don't know or don't care that their cars are actively spying on them.

sroussey3• 8 months ago

So does your phone. And the government just buys the data from data brokers.

hulitu• 8 months ago

It's not just government use either. There are private companies that scan vast numbers of license plates

Welcome to capitalism. It is very hard, in EU and US, to tell where the government ends and the private companies begin.

thewebguyd7• 8 months ago

especially when private companies can buy politicians. At this point there is no line and the two have become one.

shadowgovt• 8 months ago

Counterpoint: when you're sharing a public road, the license of your car to share that road isn't private information.

... But I echo the concern with how the collection and aggregation of the data can be abused. I just don't have a great solution. "Don't use shared public resources to do secret things; they're incompatible with privacy" might be the rubric here.

9dev5• 8 months ago

As much hate as it gets, the GDPR has pretty clear guidelines for situations like these. Essentially, the purpose of the data collection matters. Your license plates may be public information as in they are visible in the public, but that doesn’t mean collecting the information is, or providing others access to it - without your consent.

crazygringo7• 8 months ago

I'm curious what you think the solution is?

Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not.

Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public.

Obviously it's now scary that you're being tracked. But what is the solution? We certainly don't want to outlaw taking photos in public. Is it the mass aggregation of already-public data that should be made illegal? What adverse consequences might that have, e.g. journalists compiling public data to prove governmental corruption?

Teever• 8 months ago

The solution is to wake up and start treating this like it is which is mass stalking. Sousveillance against the people who profit from these disgusting antisocial behaviours should be common place.

If an individual was to do this to a single person they'd considered a creep and the cops would rustle them out of a the bushes and seize all their cameras as evidence of their stalking behaviour.

The act of incorporating and doing the same thing en masse doesn't make it legal.

batisteo• 8 months ago

There is a huge overlap between legal and immoral

vkou2• 8 months ago

I'm curious what you think the solution is?

The solution is simple. If there's a judge that signed off on a warrant to track a particular vehicle or person, cameras should be permitted to track its movements.

Otherwise, cameras should only be allowed to track people actively breaking the law - such as sending tickets to people running red lights. They should not record or retain any information about drivers that are following the rules.

Fishing expeditions are illegal and immoral. Mass tracking of innocent people is immoral.

---

Judicial warrants exist as a counterbalance between two public needs (The need to not be harassed by the police for no good reason, and the need for the police to be able to conduct active, targeted investigations of a particular crime.)

sejje• 8 months ago

Come on, it's not that hard to think of a solution.

Pass a law making it illegal to do a combination of collecting and storing personally identifying information, such as a license plate number, in a timestamped database with location data. Extra penalty if it's done for the purpose of selling the data.

huem0n2• 8 months ago

Require commercially used photos to not contain identifying information (face license plate) without consent of the owner (of the license plate/face).

This already happens a lot on Google street view.

IOT_Apprentice• 8 months ago

It should be illegal for the government to do so, further make it illegal for businesses to do so AND for city, county, state, federal governments to utilize third party databases.

stackedinserter5• 8 months ago

Get rid of license plates.

xnx4• 8 months ago

Ironically, you'll have more privacy in a Waymo than your own car.

jakelazaroff6• 8 months ago

Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not.
Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public.

One absolutely does not follow the other; there are all sorts of things that are legal only if done for certain purposes, only below a certain scale, etc. The idea that we must permit both or neither is a false dichotomy.

sandworm101• 8 months ago

Hacker solution: open/crowd source a pirate camera network. People submit feeds of traffic from whatever camera they have. We build tiny/concealable cameras to plant all over state capitals. Client-side software detects plates and reports only those on the target list. That list: every elected leader. The next time they hold a privacy-related hearing, we read out the committee chairperson's daily movements for the last month.

Other idea: AI-enabled dashcam detects and automatically reports "emergency vehicles" to google maps hands free. Goodbye speed traps.

JumpCrisscross10• 8 months ago

curious what you think the solution is?

Require a warrant for law enforcement to poll these databases. And make the database operators strictly liable for breaches and mis-use.

For all we know, "suspicious" travel patterns may include visiting a place of religious worship or an abortion clinic. For a future President, it may be parking near the home of someone who tweeted support for a J6'er.

(And we haven't even touched the national security risk Flock poses [1].)

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/03/lawmakers-say-stolen-polic...

floor2• 8 months ago

Maybe it's time to do away with license plates.

Police could switch to using VIN for tracking of warrants and such, which can be obtained after a car is pulled over.

Modern technology allows for every citizen to be tracked more comprehensively than the most wanted mob bosses or suspected soviet spies just a few decades ago.

Or simply outlaw the mass collection and sale or sharing of the data. We already outlaw sharing copies of music or movies, so I don't want to hear any complaints about enforcement- sure there'd still be some data floating around from random photos with a car in the background, but you wouldn't have repo tow truck drivers scanning 20,000 license plates a night or cameras in parking lots and such.

salawat3• 8 months ago

It is a matter of law that no digital database of firearms data can be made. The friction is a feature. I'd propose something surrounding license plates, phone info, SIM's and VIN's may be needed. Of course, LE and tax authorities would scream bloody murder, but if we didn't see such flagrant abuse of sensitive identifiers, then maybe they could be trusted with nice things.

analog8374• 8 months ago

Make everybody secure, happy and sane enough that using such powers for ill becomes uninteresting.

zoklet-enjoyer• 8 months ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

kragen15• 8 months ago

Eliminating license plates would be a good step. As I understand it, license plates were established as a compromise between privacy and accountability: they made it possible to track down evildoers without entirely eliminating anonymity in public. Now, due to advances in computer technology, they entirely eliminate anonymity in public. Therefore we should abolish them and invent an alternative that strikes a better balance between these concerns. Encrypted radio beacons, for example, which beep to alert the driver when they are being probed.

analog31• 8 months ago

I think the data itself has to come under attack in a variety of ways. Thinking off the top of my head: Possession of the data could be made illegal. The data could be treated as a public record. Defendants could be guaranteed access to all data about them in the government's possession.

blacksmith_tb2• 8 months ago

Ride a bike! I half-kid, but it's interesting to consider that cycling is a right which can't be taken away in the US, while driving is a privilege that can be revoked.

aeturnum2• 8 months ago

I think we have a mass re-assessment coming for how we think about data collected in public spaces. The realities of mass surveillance and mass data correlation come to very different outcomes than they did when we established our current rules about what is allowed in public spaces.

I don't really know what a better system looks like - but I suspect it has to do with the step where the info is provided to a third party. We can all exist in public and we can all take in whatever is happening in public - but it's not clear that passing that observation on to a third party who wasn't in public is an important freedom. Obviously this cuts both ways and we need to think carefully about preserving citizens rights to observe and report on the behavior of authorities (though also you could argue that reporting on people doing their jobs in the public space is different than reporting on private citizens).

aftbit• 8 months ago

I think the solution is simple - make it legal to hide your license plate, but make the hiders required to be remotely openable by an authorized law enforcement user. The plate hider should keep an audit log of the time, name, and badge number of the cop that required it to be opened. Anyone who wants to read license plates for a private purpose (not law enforcement) can either ask you nicely to open the hider, or screw off.

bitexploder4• 8 months ago

Doing this as a private citizen is one thing. When the government does it the implications are vastly different. That is kind of the whole point of the constitution.

codexb• 8 months ago

License plate holders that obscure the license plate on private property.

kryogen1c• 8 months ago

But what is the solution?

Don't allow the commoditization of public imagery, ie being a tourist is legal and being a business is not.

jdiff2• 8 months ago

Owning a baseball bat is completely legal. Swinging it in your immediate vicinity is completely legal. Standing within baseball bat range of other people is completely legal.

But you'll quickly find yourself detained if you try to practice this innocent collection of legal activities together. The whole is different from the sum of its parts. It's a very common occurrence.

cycomanic2• 8 months ago

I'm curious what you think the solution is? > Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not. > Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public. Collecting and selling PII without a person's consent is certainly not legal in many places.

nkrisc• 8 months ago

Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal.

And perhaps it was legal because before mass surveillance and automatic license plate readers it was difficult to impossible to abuse that.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be legal in the same way anymore.

These days they can just photograph everyone and then go back later and figure out where they were when that person is of interest. It’s pre-emptive investigation of innocent people for future use.

calvinmorrison• 8 months ago

The solution is to make it illegal to record individuals in public for the purpose of tracking.

johnnyanmac7• 8 months ago

It's the same question we're asking with scraping. It's legal to read the data off one website. What's in question is mass scraping the entire Internet and bringing hundreds of sites to a halt.

Change the scope of the data, and you change your approach to the problem. I see no reason why law should be any different.

jorvi• 8 months ago

Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information. It's all data gained in public.

In the US. GDPR forbids sharing or processing it without consent. Maybe the Californian privacy act does too?

scarecrowbob• 8 months ago

When I tell folks that I come to HN to see a particular kind of take, this is what I'm talking about.

Here is a premise: you can decompose any illegal action into legal actions, therefore according to your logic laws cannot not exist.

potato373284229• 8 months ago

But what is the solution?

The best time to plant a tree is 20yr ago. The second best time is today.

The best time to ostracize, ridicule and marginalize the people who support the growth of the surveillance state is a generation ago. The second best time is today.

I say we ostracize the crap out of the people who peddle, justify and facilitate these activities. It worked for wife beating, worked for drunk driving, worked for overt racism.

This is not a technical problem. This is not a law problem. This is a social norms and acceptability of certain actions problem. Applications of technology and law follow norms.

hellojesus• 8 months ago

Allow people to secure temporary plates that are just aliases to their normal plate so they can be swapped every x hours. Then people could use paper temp plates and change them frequently while the state still maintains the supeonable connection to the true registration.

Knowing the US dmv, this will cost $50 and only be doable twice per year, but it should be offered free of charge to be reprinted at least daily. It's not expensive to maintain a massive data lake of the records.

deadbolt• 8 months ago

Come on man, does this actually stump you? You can't come up with a single possible solution to this problem?

favflam• 8 months ago

You ban monetization of the data. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

States can ban this behavior as well.

Furthermore, legislators can create a right to privacy in the law, letting people sue companies who collect this data. And to top it off, states and the federal government can make corporate officers personally liable for collecting this information without consent.

With Lina Khan biding time in NYC, I do believe we are going to see this change very soon. I don't think there will be any public sympathy for tech companies in the next political cycle.

ssss11• 8 months ago

Just like every other discussion about private data violation - the issue is aggregation not one data point.

thatcat• 8 months ago

Tracking someone everywhere they go is stalking, but tracking everyone is just good business strategy

lbrito6• 8 months ago

Therefore taking millions of photos in public of cars, and turning their license plate numbers into a database is legal, as is selling that information

Very typical engineer thinking. The world doesn't work that way. Laws and social norms don't abide by formal logic.

ramblenode• 8 months ago

Simply, the scale of observation matters. Making observations at scale is categorically different than manual observations. And yes, there is a spectrum. But the important thing is that there is a difference between the ends of that spectrum.

The solution is to recognize that ease of observation interacts with expectation of privacy and legislate what can be done at each point on the spectrum. I have no expectation that someone won't take a picture with me in the background while I'm in public, but I would find it jarring to be filmed at every public location I went, have that video indexed to my name in a database, and have all my behaviors tagged. You write the law so that the latter thing is illegal and the former thing isn't. When there's a dispute about what's illegal, you have it resolved by the courts like every other law.

satellite2• 8 months ago

Dynamic led plate that are totp. Where you can determine who is who on which date only with central access.

pkulak2• 8 months ago

Not being such a car-dependent society that every single person is forced into a dangerous, personal machine that requires licensing and tracking, to do absolutely any activity outside the house.

ipaddr• 8 months ago

Outlaw collecting more than 1,000 photos of license plates in a given city.

beeflet14• 8 months ago

Remove the legal requirements for license plates or tinted windows.

We gimp the ability of the public to obfuscate their vehicle by forcing us to have license plates in the first place, when we already prove our license to drive with VIN and registration.

Also, remove the intellectual property protections associated with the appearance of vehicles, thus creating a market of clones that can easily fit in with each other.

andylynch4• 8 months ago

Counties with effective privacy laws focus on the control and processing of the data.

Regulating data processing like this is common and should not be controversial.

Bombthecat• 8 months ago

In Germany it's legal to take car pictures, but if you publish, you need to black out the licence plate...

egorfine• 8 months ago

I'm curious what you think the solution is?

I believe cars don't have to have license plates readable when parked. Depends on the jurisdiction of course, but I would definitely use a license plate hiding device and hide my license plate when parked.

jon-wood• 8 months ago

You don't have to work this out from first principles, the EU have already done this in the form of GDPR. Building a database mapping people's location and selling it to third parties without their consent would be squarely illegal under GDPR, and result in massive fines given the entire business model is a breach rather than this being an oversight.

Nextgrid• 8 months ago

Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not.

Because when those laws were enacted the technology to do so at scale wasn't there or wasn't cost-efficient. So it made sense to make it legal because nobody could realistically abuse it.

Nowadays this is no longer the case, so maybe the law should be amended. Of course, with the lawmakers being the ones benefiting from such abuses it's unlikely.

We certainly don't want to outlaw taking photos in public.

Some countries (Germany I believe) actually do outlaw it; I believe taking a picture is ok but publishing it requires consent of everyone in that picture.

journalists compiling public data to prove governmental corruption?

You could allow free public disclosure, but disallow selling of that data. Meaning journalists can still conduct mass-surveillance for the public interest since the results of that would be published free-of-charge, while destroying the business model of those surveillance-as-a-service companies.

me-vs-cat• 8 months ago

Taking a photograph of a car with its license plate is legal. As is selling a photo you've taken, whether it has a license plate or not.

Does it have to be?

What if selling more than 1,000 license plates with location and time in any calendar year starts down a path of increasingly severe penalties proportional to the gross income gained? What are the negative ramifications that I'm missing which would be hard to solve by following how other laws work?

Example: If you exclude location but effectively have an agreement with someone else that sells corresponding location data, then you can both be found guilty with a penalty multiplier for attempting to evade the law.

We write laws against stalking individuals, and we can write laws against similar behavior towards groups.

waltwalther• 8 months ago

The solution, from a personal privacy standpoint, could be to obscure your license plate to prevent a proper photograph from being taken. I have read of invisible film and transparent sprays that purport to do just this.

There are also very affordable "license plate flippers" which, at the push of a button, rotate both your front and rear plates to different plates.

Both of these methods are likely illegal for driving, but may be legal when parked on private property.

TitaRusell• 8 months ago

There is no solution. A large part of the population wants a borderline fascist dictatorship that hunts down brown people.

xnx4• 8 months ago

License plate scanners are one of the most under-appreciated violations of personal privacy that exist today.

Worse than cell phone tracking? Cell phone tracking is higher fidelity, continuous, and works everywhere.

DaSHacka3• 8 months ago

The difference is you can opt out by leaving it at home.

simonw7• 8 months ago

People talk about cell phone tracking all the time. I rarely see people talk about license plate scanning, hence "under-appreciated".

legitster• 8 months ago

I mean... the whole point of a license plate is that it's a public identifier. It should not be that controversial that's publicly registered information. In the same way that flights are tracked.

Multiple Supreme Courts have also made it clear several times that they believe you do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. So all the traffic camera databases do is automate and make easier something that is currently definitively legal.

The more pertinent issue in this case is that driving patterns should not be grounds for detainment without a warrant. Especially if you have no evidence to link the driver to the car. But unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision made suspicion of being an illegal immigrant grounds for detainment.

9dev5• 8 months ago

This line of argument enables all kinds of criminals to do stuff you absolutely do not want them to. From stalkers figuring out the best time to rape their victim to organised crime planning cash truck robbery routes.

pton_xd• 8 months ago

Multiple Supreme Courts have also made it clear several times that they believe you do not have a right to privacy in public spaces. So all the traffic camera databases do is automate and make easier something that is currently definitively legal.

I propose we streamline things and augment your cars license plate with a placard stating:

First and Last Name

Address and Phone Number

Drivers license number

Age and net worth

Prior convictions

Maybe there's a few more factoids we could add on there? I'd really like to know who is parked next to me. I mean, you're in public and have no expectation of privacy afterall.

relwin• 8 months ago

Here's a vid describing DRN & Resolvion supplying car location data to repo companies. I didn't realize they'll strap a camera pack on your car and pay you a commission on the license plate data you collect. https://youtu.be/xE5NnZm9OpU?si=oEkSvUjNmBhQD-xI&t=138

titzer• 8 months ago

Don't use Google Location Service (GLS) on your phone. It's built into Google Play Services, aka the enormous rootkit from Google and does...stuff...with high accuracy location data because lawyers think they can argue in court that that data is "anonymized".

impish9208• 8 months ago

Car repossession companies also use this data.

johnnyanmac7• 8 months ago

Yeah, I was just watching a How Money Works video and how these same services are used for car repos. Worse yet, there is a gig economy around paying people to collect photos taken from private cars and giving them a kickback for any that lead to repos.

I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg.

chzblck• 8 months ago

- yeah it also has solved 3 murders near house so is it really a net negative?

potato373284229• 8 months ago

What are the odds they wouldn't have solved those murders anyway?

wnc3141• 8 months ago

I'd be for it if there was direct control over the data. Like it shouldn't be hard to not let ICE into your police data when looking for stolen cars.

throwaway638383• 8 months ago

CAIR-CA is suing San Jose over it — https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-ca-joins-lawsuit-chal...

XorNot• 8 months ago

This is just the classic infosec nerd missing the point.

The problem isn't the license plate monitoring. The problem is the detention without cause.

It's the jackbooted thugs kicking in your door which are the issue, not that address books exist.

danielbln• 8 months ago

If the data troth hadn't been created, the jackboots wouldn't know what door to kick in.

simonw7• 8 months ago

Maybe both are bad.

lynx972• 8 months ago

Why do you think exposing adultery is a bad thing?

WastedCucumber• 8 months ago

I'm sure they don't think exposing adultery is inherently bad, but rather that the method employed feels like an excessive violation of privacy.

If you'd like a different example, imagine a man is angry that his ex wife is with someone else now, and uses such a service to figure out where he can find the pair.

simonw7• 8 months ago

Heres a better example: want to escape an abusive relationship? Your license plate may help your abuser track you down again.

ndsipa_pomu3• 8 months ago

It's another good reason to reduce car dependency

MSFT_Edging2• 8 months ago

All the coverage lately on things like Flock and other privacy-reducing panopticon startups always softball the topic so hard.

"As long as its being used by police professionally..." is an insane stance to keep on this.

In the West we regularly point to China's surveillance state, as some horrific human rights abuse. Yet when it happens at home we don't use that same level of vitriol. Which is it? China uses authoritarian surveillance? Because then we have government-corporate cooperation here for the same authoritarian surveillance.

If it's okay for officer Opie to have access to enough data to stalk and harass any woman that refuses him, then we're no better. No amount of "right hands" can make this level of surveillance okay.

faitswulff• 8 months ago

You see similar levels of hypocrisy leveled at the capacity for Chinese EVs to surveil consumers, but not at Tesla, when we know that Tesla employees had access to sex tapes of their customers in their cars. As long as it’s western capital or western police doing the surveillance, it must be permissible, right? /s

We should be clamping down on all surveillance, and this is not a problem that has a technological solution. Quite the reverse, actually.

pixl97• 8 months ago

This is just nationalism in practice. Them bad, us good. No nuances, no thinking.

stronglikedan3• 8 months ago

Even more egregious is that most states have made it illegal to hide your plate from cameras, even if it's still completely visible and readable by the human eye.

mensetmanusman• 8 months ago

This is what ad companies do everyday.

lbrito6• 8 months ago

This is what the world's most perfect democracy looks like. Peak Freedom.

nxor2• 8 months ago

According to Pew Research, more foreigners make up the US population today than ever recorded. People here are allowed to question who is coming.

walthamstow• 8 months ago

What even is a foreigner in a place like the USA?

ImPleadThe5th• 8 months ago

I will always find it weird that people who think the fact their consciousness randomly popped into existence through pure luck in a privileged country means that they deserve it more than someone who popped into existence somewhere else.

Even that aside, how does that give them the right to infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens?

lbrito6• 8 months ago

Not sure about the "ever recorded" part - how far back are we talking? There were some pretty massive waves of illegal aliens flooding the East Coast back in the 1600s.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

People here are allowed to question

I don't get why you have to obfuscate like this. You aren't against limitations for questioning. You wont find any sensible person that is against immigration enforcement completely.

What you want is the ability for your side to carry out its will unobstructed by any legal process, because you fundamentally believe what they are doing is right, and the other side is evil.

Just say that instead of pretending that its about the law.

thrance• 8 months ago

The US is a country of immigrants. It was made by people coming from overseas. Never forget that.

ActorNightly22• 8 months ago

To be fair, we are also free to own guns and defend ourselves against illegal acts. Too bad people just want freedom when its easy, not when its hard

saubeidl• 8 months ago

The people with the guns and the militias are the ones in support of the tyrant, unfortunately.

triceratops3• 8 months ago

Guns can't help protect you against illegal acts like these.

ChrisArchitect• 8 months ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45991257

shortrounddev2• 8 months ago

In the last admin I used to think that "abolish ICE" was hysterical.

I now believe we need to not only abolish ICE, but puts the politicians and officers on trial. CBP needs to be purged and rebuilt from the ground up.

greenavocado• 8 months ago

Modern cars log their GPS coordinates about every 60 seconds and maintain weeks of records at minimum. Police regularly obtain search warrants to view weeks of GPS logs from your infotainment system.

gosub100• 8 months ago

just saw this [1] today where the police chief was using license plate readers to stalk and harass "multiple victims". This is why you don't collect the information in the first place. I am sure the lawyers are one step ahead, but I think Flock should pay these victims directly (in addition to the PD) for failing to stop the misuse of their technology.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/braselton-police-chief-arre...

pstuart• 8 months ago

It's germane to point out the War on Drugs™ is a war on the people and has never been about "keeping people safe". I know that a lot of people say that cannabis is ok but hard drugs should not be legal to keep people safe. Look at how well that's worked out, as well as how the people involved with those drugs are treated (users are treated like dangerous criminals rather than with substance abuse issues).

This war along with the War on Terror™ give pretense to all of these abuses of power and need to be undone. The problems they profess to address can be addressed in much simpler, cheaper, and humane ways.

billy99k• 8 months ago

Canada has been authoritarian for awhile, while trying to claim to be 'nice'. The protestors during Covid got de-banked, fired, and arrested.

Democracies with Liberal leaders can quite literally get away with murder.

bigyabai2• 8 months ago

Democracies with Liberal leaders can quite literally get away with murder.

I mean, so can Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's less about being a democratic liberal, and more about having the right connections.

arnonejoe• 8 months ago

You can sue the government for violating your 4th amendment rights.

micromacrofoot• 8 months ago

Intentionally driving suspiciously to get illegally detained sounds like an easy lawsuit.

jkestner2• 8 months ago

If only the application of the law was as binary as code.

nmeagent3• 8 months ago

Beware of "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Some people don't survive that ride. Sometimes that ride lasts many years.

stackedinserter5• 8 months ago

Remind me, why do we need license plates?

If there's a reason for having them, why don't we require them for people? Let's make everyone walk with their id at the front and back. We're for public safety here, right?

hnburnsy2• 8 months ago

Does anyone know if ALPRs are being combined with Bluetooth/TPMS scanning to associate devices across vehicles or if TPMS is getting associated to vehicles (like if a stolen plate is put on another vehicle because the TPMS doesn't match)?

Ms-J2• 8 months ago

TPMS scanning is particularly nasty. I've been meaning to read up more about all of the potential ways it can violate our privacy. Sorry that I don't have any further info about it in this case.

scblock• 8 months ago

"detaining those with suspicious travel patterns"

Detaining those they _deem_, without oversight to have such.

Padriac• 8 months ago

This is good news. Punish the wrongdoers so we can live in a peaceful safe society.

hnburnsy2• 8 months ago

What bugs me the most about all this surveillance is that crime clearance rates dont seem to be improving, I guess it just makes law enforcents job easier, they just click click click instead of actual shoe leathering.

Murder clearance rates in the 50s was in the high ninety percent.

ntonozzi• 8 months ago

There are some good reasons it is lower now, like defense lawyers and Miranda rights. Obviously it'd be good if we had both good civil rights AND high murder clearance, but they seem in obvious tension with each other.

jimt1234• 8 months ago

I drive back-country roads all the time to go hiking and camping. I guess that makes me an outlaw now. Great. /s

cratermoon• 8 months ago

So, standard driving while black (or brown, or Muslim, or whatever is demonized in $CURRENT_YEAR), but extended to new categories? I guess now that it's impinging on the comfortable it's news.

fudged71• 8 months ago

Anyone can be targeted, anyone can be pulled over, anyone can be detained, anyone can be labelled a terrorist, anyone can be deported to a black hole in el salvador. These are dark times.

superkuh3• 8 months ago

The border patrol should only be able to do this within the 100 mile no constitution zone that extends from all foreign borders (including internal borders like the great lakes). If they do this in Minneapolis, Minnesota or Denver, Colorado it would be unconstitutional.

nmeagent3• 8 months ago

No. They shouldn't be able to do this within 100 miles of a border either, since that's not a reasonable distance for the border exception to apply by any sane reasoning. The rights of roughly 2/3 of the US population don't evaporate because of some absurd assertion of distance that is clearly off by two orders of magnitude. We must uproot this particular crop of dystopian bullshit and salt the earth in its place.

hising• 8 months ago

It is so tragic to see where the US is going in real time from an outside observer. So much for "freedom".

ddalex3• 8 months ago

Land of the free.....

whatsupdog• 8 months ago

Once limited to policing the nation’s boundaries, the Border Patrol has built a surveillance system stretching into the country’s interior

Well, that's what happens when you blur the line called the border.

jdprgm• 8 months ago

It feels like the past 25 years has been a continuous slowly constricting circle just chipping away at privacy and freedom and it almost never goes in the other direction or even just reverts a policy back to baseline. People largely don't seem to care though and I don't think there are any politicians seriously fighting against it and prioritizing as a primary policy.

greedo8• 8 months ago

Technology is going to change a lot of things...

Imagine a drone swarm that follows you wherever you go. Tracking and photographing every step you take in public. When you go into a building, a ground drone follows you in, notes where you've gone, and when you leave, hands you off to the flying swarm. Creating a trail of all your activities. Legally there may not be anything you can do to stop it.

The expectation that you have no privacy in public is what fuels this.

wiml• 8 months ago

Don't need anything as clumsy as a drone swarm. There are systems designed to aerially record an entire city at high enough resolution to follow each individual. And to keep history long enough to go back to before you thought you had to be careful.

greedo8• 8 months ago

I was extrapolating a lower cost version of Gorgon Stare. I remember when Rivet Joint first came on line and it was possible to track Warsaw Pact units as they traveled, and you could extrapolate their C3 units as well as their POL supplies. Never thought it would become part of modern police surveillance, but I was a young naive person back then.

QuiEgo• 8 months ago

Remember the movie Minority Report? Where a central plot point was the main character being tracked (by their retina in that case), and how to defeat the tracking? Vibes.

puppycodes• 8 months ago

Terrifying and unconstitutional

bloomingeek• 8 months ago

After graduating high school, our daughter became a "member" working for Disney World. We made several driving trips back and forth to visit or bring her stuff she wanted or just for the heck of it. Then after a while we flew out, rented a van and brought all her things and her back home. Was that suspicious?

The same daughter and our son-in-law lived in Huntsville Alabama while he finished his post grad degree. I can't tell you how many trips we made then to visit, tour and eat at restaurants around town. Was that suspicious?

In 2023, we drove a round-about way to Phoenix to purchase a puppy. We visited Carlsbad New Mexico and several national parks after driving through the panhandle of Texas, in some of the remotest highways I've ever been on. (And beautiful too!) On the way home, we took a different route to see more of the states. Was that suspicious?

If I would have been pulled over and asked what I was doing, I would have said it was none of their damn business, I'd broken no laws. (Yes, I would have said we are on a trip to buy a dog and are heading home, but to be grilled, hell no!) How is this legal? I'm a white guy in his late sixties, is it fair they wouldn't suspect me because of that? Does the rule of law crumbling bother anyone anymore?

EchoReflection• 8 months ago

good? why is this "news-worthy"? "Law-enforcement personnel are paying attention to people behaving 'suspiciously'" seems like: "people are doing their jobs". Gasp! The audacity!

beeflet14• 8 months ago

This comment is suspicious. I'm gonna need to see some ID

BizarroLand• 8 months ago

72 hours in a cell while I rifle through their entire life for anything I can use to extend their stay at the Graybar Hotel should be enough to cool their heels.

Mawr• 8 months ago

Ah, the freedom of a car. Well, in any case, this is easy to circumvent—use public transport or ride a bike. Wait, what country are we talking about here? Oh... right.

beeflet14• 8 months ago

it will not protect you from camera surveilance

peteforde• 8 months ago

Benn Jordan's recent video on Flock Security cameras is a must-watch IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY

mumber_typhoon2• 8 months ago

In February, Lorenzo Gutierrez Lugo, a driver for a small trucking company that specializes in transporting furniture, clothing and other belongings to families in Mexico, was driving south to the border city of Brownsville, Texas, carrying packages from immigrant communities in South Carolina’s low country.

If you think 'this is just a normal citizen doing good work' at first and you are breaking privacy here, keep reading.

They unearthed no contraband. But Beltran arrested Gutierrez Lugo on suspicion of money laundering and engaging in organized criminal activity because he was carrying thousands of dollars in cash — money his supervisor said came directly from customers in local Latino communities, who are accustomed to paying in cash.

carrying thousands of dollars in cash over the US Mexico border is so suspicious that there is likely a lot more happening. The trucking company spent 20,000$ to get him out of it.

The more I think of better call Saul and breaking bad, the more I wonder whether this is one of those situations where the reality is actually much worse than television fiction.

90% of the drugs that enter US come from the south border. At 120 tons of drugs being 'seized' not the ones being distributed, I am assuming the scale of this thing is massive. [1]

[1] https://forumtogether.org/article/illicit-fentanyl-and-drug-...

kart23• 8 months ago

Carrying cash isn't a crime. The fact that no charges were brought says that they couldn't prove a crime was committed either. And please read the fifth amendment.

No criminal charges were ultimately brought against Gutierrez Lugo

mumber_typhoon2• 8 months ago

Carrying cash isn't a crime.

No but carrying over $10,000 into the US requires you to declare it and maybe pay taxes if you can't prove its source or risk being sized (which is fine if it's drug money).

thesh4d0w• 8 months ago

driving south to the border city of Brownsville, Texas
from immigrant communities in South Carolina

Not sure where you got that he crossed the border. If they had a case he'd have been arrested, you're making some pretty shady assumptions here.

anarticle• 8 months ago

"They'll never use it for evil!"

It was about cost, not desire.

Originally it would cost too much to have someone follow you around and keep track of where you're going. This was a kind of check against that system. Now you're an SQL query away from being on some list you don't know exists.

insane_dreamer• 8 months ago

The US is turning into China, which has perfected the surveillance state.

ragebol2• 8 months ago

Here goes the "I have nothing to hide" argument. They'll find new stuff that'll make you suspicious.

ndsipa_pomu3• 8 months ago

What's needed is to have license plates with little displays that show some Disney cartoon or other copyrighted work. Then it's a matter of informing Disney that their IP is being illegally copied.

34679• 8 months ago

This honestly has me considering replacing my plates with something that says "The driver of this vehicle invokes their 4th and 5th Amendment rights."

silexia• 8 months ago

This is the problem with government... it is impossible to shrink or close agencies, and they only ever grow and grab more power. We need Constitutional limits on government size and power. Don't trust politicians when they promise you things.

burnt-resistor2• 8 months ago

Vacationing too much with too many people? "Human trafficking!"

stevenalowe• 8 months ago

Or so they say. Could just be DWB (driving while black/brown) with a new smokescreen

CBP is monitoring US drivers and detaining those with suspicious travel patterns

Related Stories