6 ms·

I'm not quite sure how generating more data about people's locations and putting it in the hands of more people is considered a victory for privacy advocates.

Symbiote 11y ago
Perhaps if it creates debate, and raises awareness that this exists. It could lead to restrictions on what the government is permitted to do with the data.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  That's a pretty dystopic view. I'd rather the government not collect the data at all. The massive perpetual databases that are amassing around the world are really ticking time bombs.
  - kabdib 11y ago
    The cameras are there. They are not going away. Cameras are incredibly cheap, tiny and readily available, and legislating them out of private hands just isn't going to happen. So we'll have to deal with them somehow, and I'd prefer that the government not have a monopoly on the data -- frankly, I think that the data that the government collects in public should be made public, rather immediately, so that we can see what is being collected.
    - x1798DE 11y ago
      I don't have a huge problem with individuals running license plate readers, since that is necessarily limited in scope. I meant that it's a bit of a dystopic view to assume that the government should be allowed to have their license plate readers and use them to accumulate massive databases that track the position of every car on every road.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        For those who are unaware, individuals running license plate readers can be (and already are) paid to send their data to aggregators.
      - mentat 11y ago
        They already do. Warrentless access as well.
- c22 11y ago
  But it seems more likely just to lead to restrictions on what data citizens are allowed to collect.
  - detaro 11y ago
    Given that a lot of the license plate capture right now is private companies (that insist that everybody can do so) such restrictions would achieve at least some the goal. Now if that's worth it is a different question...
- danso 11y ago
  This is a good point...when discussing the controversies behind surveillance and privacy, a frequent issue is that most people have no idea what's possible, even though it should be as clear as day. An obvious example is back when Facebook's API was more publicly accessible, youropenbook [1] But there are other things to be mindful of...when publicizing how easy it is to be surveilled/attacked, how easy is it to for a mischievous person to make use of that information versus how long would it take to fix? I'd have mixed feelings about anyone publishing a user-friendly one-button-SWATter, even if it would most certainly spur some kind of movement to strengthen our emergency response systems (eventually). But something that is basically an object detector plus OCR? No doubt that if many people run this software, and then feed into a system that makes it as easy (and ubiquitous) as Google to look up any license plate and see instantly all locations where it has been photographed, we would have a situation that would make most people a bit unhappy...but without those network effects, the personal use of this software would seem to be relatively benign, while at the same time educating people how easy it is to be tracked. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbook_(website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbook_(website)
  - smartbit 11y ago
    On remote locations collected data could be transmitted into this public LPR system over free LoRaWAN networks like The Things Network https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10438352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10438352
stretchwithme 11y ago
I'd like to see the license plates of stolen vehicles published. I don't see that as a violation of privacy, especially if the owners agree to publish them. Then anybody could see stolen vehicles and report them. That would discourage theft.
- gregschlom 11y ago
  I don't think anyone serious about stealing cars would drive them around with their original license plate. Most likely the first thing thieves do is switch their plate with the plate of a similar car (same make, same color), then drive to another country where they'll be resold.
  - gliese1337 11y ago
    I think you presume too much about the motives and planning behind the majority of car thefts. A professional car thief who steals cars in order to resell them may very well work that way. But I suspect those people are a small minority in comparison to the opportunists who probably don't have appropriate spare plates on hand, or the desperate criminals trying to pick up a getaway car, or the joyriders, etc.
  - tbyehl 11y ago
    That's a lot of work, plus you don't know if the owner of the stolen plate has warrants, suspended license, lack of insurance, or anything else that might cause an ALPRS alert. Better to just remove the plate and go. I commuted in one car for a year with no plate. Drove by cop cars with ALPRS regularly. I don't think these things alert when an object passes by but it failed to recognize a license plate. In another car that I'd just purchased a cop pulled up next to me at a light and asked about my lack of plate. Said I bought it a couple days ago, he said I have X days in this state to get tagged and drove off.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Right. Handwritten note in the back window, in big block letters.
dexterdog 11y ago
At least there is a more trustworthy method of validation. Is it illegal for me to spend my time on a lawn chair on the side of the highway logging the plates I see if that's the kind of thing that blows my skirt up?
rodgerd 11y ago
On one level I agree - ensuring that it's easier for, say, a criminal gang to track unmarked police cars or abusive exes to find their victims seems a backward step. The flips side of that, though, is that this power exists and is being used by rich, powerful entities anyway. If I was a law-abiding member of a mosque or political group, I'd love to know that undercover law enforcement officers are trying to stir up trouble, for example. If they can track me, why shouldn't I be able to track them? Or, less melodramatically, the highest rate of road fatalities in my country involve logging trucks. There are persistent claims that companies keep them on the road for more hours than their drivers are legally allowed to work, but they're politically shielded from official investigations. It would be nice for citizen groups to have the tools to investigate those claims. If we should be able to go about free of day-to-day surveillance (absent good, court-approved cause), which I certainly agree with, then we should be modifying laws and institutions to reflect that. Since what we've got is a situation where the powerful (government agencies, large companies) use the absence of regulation and powerful tools to watch us the second-best option is for us to have the tools to watch them.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It'd be trivial to make a car bomb that only explodes when a certain car passes by.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Just detect their toll transponder tag in the car, no license plate required.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Toll transponders are optional but license plates are not. Curious the downvotes on that comment, it's totally feasible.
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        TPMS transmitters aren't optional, either...
Hello71 11y ago
the same way that Wireshark benefits security professionals by making it easier to monitor the network for bad people and audit applications to make sure they aren't doing bad things even though it also makes it easier for bad people to see what good people are doing. * note: the definition of "good people" and "bad people" is not the point here
- lgieron 11y ago
  In Poland, the majority of stolen cars are disassembled for parts.
cornellwright 11y ago
As someone else pointed out, this could be a good way to crowd source watching the watchers. You may be able to get a list of law enforcement license plates through a FOIA request and then use this plus a network of many highway cameras to show a map of where law enforcement was last seen.

Symbiote 11y ago

Perhaps if it creates debate, and raises awareness that this exists. It could lead to restrictions on what the government is permitted to do with the data.

x1798DE 11y ago
That's a pretty dystopic view. I'd rather the government not collect the data at all. The massive perpetual databases that are amassing around the world are really ticking time bombs.
- kabdib 11y ago
  The cameras are there. They are not going away. Cameras are incredibly cheap, tiny and readily available, and legislating them out of private hands just isn't going to happen. So we'll have to deal with them somehow, and I'd prefer that the government not have a monopoly on the data -- frankly, I think that the data that the government collects in public should be made public, rather immediately, so that we can see what is being collected.
  - x1798DE 11y ago
    I don't have a huge problem with individuals running license plate readers, since that is necessarily limited in scope. I meant that it's a bit of a dystopic view to assume that the government should be allowed to have their license plate readers and use them to accumulate massive databases that track the position of every car on every road.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      For those who are unaware, individuals running license plate readers can be (and already are) paid to send their data to aggregators.
    - mentat 11y ago
      They already do. Warrentless access as well.
c22 11y ago
But it seems more likely just to lead to restrictions on what data citizens are allowed to collect.
- detaro 11y ago
  Given that a lot of the license plate capture right now is private companies (that insist that everybody can do so) such restrictions would achieve at least some the goal. Now if that's worth it is a different question...
danso 11y ago
This is a good point...when discussing the controversies behind surveillance and privacy, a frequent issue is that most people have no idea what's possible, even though it should be as clear as day. An obvious example is back when Facebook's API was more publicly accessible, youropenbook [1] But there are other things to be mindful of...when publicizing how easy it is to be surveilled/attacked, how easy is it to for a mischievous person to make use of that information versus how long would it take to fix? I'd have mixed feelings about anyone publishing a user-friendly one-button-SWATter, even if it would most certainly spur some kind of movement to strengthen our emergency response systems (eventually). But something that is basically an object detector plus OCR? No doubt that if many people run this software, and then feed into a system that makes it as easy (and ubiquitous) as Google to look up any license plate and see instantly all locations where it has been photographed, we would have a situation that would make most people a bit unhappy...but without those network effects, the personal use of this software would seem to be relatively benign, while at the same time educating people how easy it is to be tracked. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbook_(website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openbook_(website)
- smartbit 11y ago
  On remote locations collected data could be transmitted into this public LPR system over free LoRaWAN networks like The Things Network https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10438352 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10438352

stretchwithme 11y ago

I'd like to see the license plates of stolen vehicles published. I don't see that as a violation of privacy, especially if the owners agree to publish them. Then anybody could see stolen vehicles and report them. That would discourage theft.

gregschlom 11y ago
I don't think anyone serious about stealing cars would drive them around with their original license plate. Most likely the first thing thieves do is switch their plate with the plate of a similar car (same make, same color), then drive to another country where they'll be resold.
- gliese1337 11y ago
  I think you presume too much about the motives and planning behind the majority of car thefts. A professional car thief who steals cars in order to resell them may very well work that way. But I suspect those people are a small minority in comparison to the opportunists who probably don't have appropriate spare plates on hand, or the desperate criminals trying to pick up a getaway car, or the joyriders, etc.
- tbyehl 11y ago
  That's a lot of work, plus you don't know if the owner of the stolen plate has warrants, suspended license, lack of insurance, or anything else that might cause an ALPRS alert. Better to just remove the plate and go. I commuted in one car for a year with no plate. Drove by cop cars with ALPRS regularly. I don't think these things alert when an object passes by but it failed to recognize a license plate. In another car that I'd just purchased a cop pulled up next to me at a light and asked about my lack of plate. Said I bought it a couple days ago, he said I have X days in this state to get tagged and drove off.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Right. Handwritten note in the back window, in big block letters.

dexterdog 11y ago

At least there is a more trustworthy method of validation. Is it illegal for me to spend my time on a lawn chair on the side of the highway logging the plates I see if that's the kind of thing that blows my skirt up?

rodgerd 11y ago

On one level I agree - ensuring that it's easier for, say, a criminal gang to track unmarked police cars or abusive exes to find their victims seems a backward step. The flips side of that, though, is that this power exists and is being used by rich, powerful entities anyway. If I was a law-abiding member of a mosque or political group, I'd love to know that undercover law enforcement officers are trying to stir up trouble, for example. If they can track me, why shouldn't I be able to track them? Or, less melodramatically, the highest rate of road fatalities in my country involve logging trucks. There are persistent claims that companies keep them on the road for more hours than their drivers are legally allowed to work, but they're politically shielded from official investigations. It would be nice for citizen groups to have the tools to investigate those claims. If we should be able to go about free of day-to-day surveillance (absent good, court-approved cause), which I certainly agree with, then we should be modifying laws and institutions to reflect that. Since what we've got is a situation where the powerful (government agencies, large companies) use the absence of regulation and powerful tools to watch us the second-best option is for us to have the tools to watch them.

jacquesm 11y ago
It'd be trivial to make a car bomb that only explodes when a certain car passes by.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Just detect their toll transponder tag in the car, no license plate required.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Toll transponders are optional but license plates are not. Curious the downvotes on that comment, it's totally feasible.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      TPMS transmitters aren't optional, either...

Hello71 11y ago

the same way that Wireshark benefits security professionals by making it easier to monitor the network for bad people and audit applications to make sure they aren't doing bad things even though it also makes it easier for bad people to see what good people are doing. * note: the definition of "good people" and "bad people" is not the point here

lgieron 11y ago
In Poland, the majority of stolen cars are disassembled for parts.

cornellwright 11y ago

As someone else pointed out, this could be a good way to crowd source watching the watchers. You may be able to get a list of law enforcement license plates through a FOIA request and then use this plus a network of many highway cameras to show a map of where law enforcement was last seen.