Saw that coming
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
In my opinion, they have every right to conduct lawful investigations.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Police are saying ... "Praise be to the idiots who freely give up some of the most of sensitive personal information ever to be used against them." Once anyone freely gives, sends, whatever, to another, information, there are no protections since you are not the only person in possession of the information. People just fall for anything and can't keep their mouths shut or keyboards quiet.
Not surprising. You are highly pro-criminal and in favor of pretty much anything that keeps predators on the streets victimizing society.
Yes, I'm sure police are saying that. I'm saying it as well. Kudo's to the law enforcement official who thought outside the box on this one.
glhs837
Power with Control
I don't mind them being able to access such with the proper legal proceedings, meaning they should be required to meet the same burden of proof they would need to force me to give a sample. I do object to them having the same sort of access they seem to enjoy with other things like ALPR data. Which is I think the point of the article, to make folks aware that such access might be in the "sights" of law enforcement. To just roll in the data in these privately held databases into the federal ones.
Correct me if I am wrong, but ALPR data is information which is readily available to law enforcement without any legal process. By that I mean law enforcement can obtain all of that information by simply "running" your license plate.
glhs837
Power with Control
Exactly, although there are two kinds of ALPR data. Govt data, collected by govt agencies as you see commonly on the backs of police cars. That data generally has a time limit, after which it gets purged. Does the NSA get to archive it? I can't image they don't, although I've never seen it explicitly stated. And privately collected data, done by companies who cater to say the Repo and skip tracer industries. That data has no time limits. What's interesting is the intersection of these. Say the govt APRL cameras are actually operated under contract by a vendor. Does the vendor get to keep the data even after the customer has been required to wipe it? I think there are cases out there like that.
Now comes the interesting part. Law enforcement can, and does, pay for access to the "immortal" data held by vendors. Just more the persistent suspicion state, where we as a matter of course gather all the datas, all the time. Just in case, you see. Never too careful, you know. Never know when the State might need to go back and review a citizens life in minute detail. Any citizen.
Now comes the interesting part. Law enforcement can, and does, pay for access to the "immortal" data held by vendors. Just more the persistent suspicion state, where we as a matter of course gather all the datas, all the time. Just in case, you see. Never too careful, you know. Never know when the State might need to go back and review a citizens life in minute detail. Any citizen.
Ok. You haven't shown me anything wrong. It's a fair, almost accurate account, but still nothing wrong with the process.
glhs837
Power with Control
Well, there's legal and there is right and wrong. Lots of folks equate the two. If it's legal, it must be right. Me, I like to draw a finer line, realizing that's me, not the law. Do I think these things are right? Nope, I think the more we enter into blind acceptance that everything we do is archived and readily available to the govt whenever for whatever, I think the relationship between governed and the government gets poisoned. If you had a spouse or kids who you felt the need to plant a tracker on, not because you thought she was cheating or they were up to no good, but just in case she or they ever did, you would have a pretty crappy relationship. I think the same thing applies here.
Now, show me that the database only contains vehicles belonging to folks the authorities have a legitimate interest in, and once that status changes it comes out of the database, I would be fine with that. But simply recording every plate every day, and storing that data just in case? While it may be legal, I don't feel it's right.
Now, show me that the database only contains vehicles belonging to folks the authorities have a legitimate interest in, and once that status changes it comes out of the database, I would be fine with that. But simply recording every plate every day, and storing that data just in case? While it may be legal, I don't feel it's right.
Hank
my war
He's a cop hating prick. I hope he needs them sometime and they don't show up.
glhs837
Power with Control
Oh, sorry, I think I misread what you wrote. Normally, when an officer runs your tags, he gets some stuff. Registered owner, that owner name and address, maybe your license picture. I'm not sure what pops up different between tags and running the drivers license, though. Might be you get barebones from the plate, and information about stuff like warrants only pops when the drivers ID is checked. Can't say.
What I mean by ALPR data, if you were to run that, it gives you a detailed listing of every time that cars plates have encountered an ALPR device that contributes to that database. Specific address and GPS, and time of day.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/what-we-learned-oakland-raw-alpr-data
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nitely-suspends-license-plate-reader-program/
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is just that. I think these things are right for the similar reasons you think they are wrong. If I had a spouse or a child who went missing, I would hope these trackers would catch a tag somewhere. If I had a parent who had dementia and went out driving, I would hope this reader would find them. If I had a loved one who was injured by a person and a tag reader was the way that person was caught, I would be happy with the technology. You seem to want to discount the technology and say that it is bad without accepting the good. I feel it's right and like minded people agree because it's legal.
You still haven't shown me that it's wrong....only that YOU think it's wrong.
Last edited:
Amused_despair
New Member
You may be thinking of ambulances. Cops don't normally show up until after you have needed them, hence the Second Amendment.
glhs837
Power with Control
You should read closer.
"Now, show me that the database only contains vehicles belonging to folks the authorities have a legitimate interest in, and once that status changes it comes out of the database, I would be fine with that. But simply recording every plate every day, and storing that data just in case? While it may be legal, I don't feel it's right."
All of your examples don't require long term data storage, simply loading the plate of interest into the system at the time of the incident would result in a hit and the system has done its job. That requires you to read each plate, but keeping that data longer than a week say, not required for those cases. Oddly enough, someone checkd DCs usage, and I think less than .01% of hits were hits,
Ah, here it is......
http://wamu.org/news/13/12/10/licen...s_capturing_millions_of_license_plate_numbers
"
According to department regulations, D.C. police retain license plate images for two years, keeping them for longer if part of an investigation. But data obtained by WAMU 88.5 shows that the overwhelming majority of the plates scanned are of people who have committed no crimes: of the 204 million license plates scanned and stored in 2012, for example, 22,655 were linked to specific offenses — a hit rate of .01 percent. "
I could give scenario's where each of my examples could require the tag readers to store the data longer. That doesn't really matter anyhow. You STILL can't tell me why it's wrong other than your opinion says so.
I love people like you, who have lived off the government dole their entire adult life, but then question the government who has been paying you all these years.
I don't trust anyone who does not question government powers and the ever-growing reach of them.
As is your right. That doesn't mean everyone else has to feel that way. I love my country and my countrymen. I have spent my entire adult life working for the government in some capacity. Government is us. I believe in us. You don't have to, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.
You would have been very comfortable then, in places like...China or Cambodia... ;-)
MMM_donuts
New Member
Holy cow we agree on something!
Genetic testing is extraordinarily expensive when done privately but can be very useful. Sites like 23 and me can be helpful to individuals that are simply interested in looking into their own genetic health for private and personal reasons. Making data like that available to law enforcement would discourage usage of genetic testing. That should be, IMO, considered private medical data. It shows information about genetic vulnerabilities. I understand how valuable that can be for LE but that's crossing a privacy line for me that I feel is unnecessary.
I have always wanted to do 23 and me but have backed off since the government restricted what data they can provide and interpret. I am no criminal but I don't want my dna just out there all willy nilly and available to the government.
Although, the Marine Corps has my dna, so........ I wonder how they're allowed to use it.