License plates scanned and data kept by police

[Frank Lee]

Driving somewhere? There's a gov't record of that

Welcome to the police state.

[SentraSE-R]

My brother & I talked about this a decade ago, about how easy it would be for the parking patrol officers (aka [in another age] meter maids) to scan your license plate and gps location for parking enforcement. So now they've advanced the technology to give them the ability to collect data for more serious offenses. That's not all bad. Where would the Tsarnaev investigation be if Big Brother hadn't been watching?

We don't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Get used to it.

[gone-ot]

...and some people don't believe that BIG BROTHER is watching...ha,ha!

[Frank Lee]

Where would the Tsarnaev investigation be if Big Brother hadn't been watching?

BWAAHAHAHA! Not only is there no expectation of privacy in public places, there is no expectation of privacy on the phone, or email, or anyplace online, or probably snail mail, or probably in your own home. Since Big Brother knows all, why didn't he PREVENT the Boston bombings? Hmmmmmm

P.S. That's all I'm going to say about ^ or else this thread will head straight for lockdown.

[NachtRitter]

Apparently rather old news... this article (License Plates, Cameras, and Our Vanishing Privacy - IEEE Spectrum) points out that the Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. has been scanning since 2010. Also, it's not just the Government... repossession agencies are scanning plates too. Wouldn't be terribly surprised if the same concept was being used for some form of marketing too... park at a shopping center and soon after you start getting junk mail from the stores there...

[Frank Lee]

Yes, but I think the "new" news is that some (most) agencies are not DISPOSING of the collected data; they are hanging on to most or all of it indefinitely.

[cujet]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

We don't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Get used to it.

I disagree.

First and foremost, buzz phrases like "no expectation of privacy" have no constitutional basis and are simply an end run around Constitutional freedoms

Second, a government dossier on each and every citizen, er, subject, is 100% unconstitutional. And a very, very similar tactic used by the nearly endless list of failed authoritarian governments.

Third, warantless tracking of individuals with onboard GPS has been ruled unconstitutional. Why would tracking individuals with other means be any different.

As Americans, we have every expectation of going where we want, when we want, and it's nobody's business where or why. So that famous statement above is stunningly flawed.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Where would the Tsarnaev investigation be if Big Brother hadn't been watching?

You use that as an example?

Private surveillance footage provided most of the early evidence (not Big Brother). And while blatantly violating constitutionally protected rights, thousands of cops lock down a 20-block area and search it "thoroughly" but miss the guy they are looking for. Only when a citizen tells them where he's at (in the area they just searched) is he found. The citizen would have found the guy earlier, but had to wait for the lockdown to be lifted.

What a joke.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by cujet

I disagree.

First and foremost, buzz phrases like "no expectation of privacy" have no constitutional basis and are simply an end run around Constitutional freedoms

Second, a government dossier on each and every citizen, er, subject, is 100% unconstitutional. And very, very similar to the nearly endless list of failed authoritarian governments.

Third, warantless tracking of individuals with onboard GPS has been ruled unconstitutional. Why would tracking individuals with other means be any different.

As Americans, we have every expectation of going where we want, when we want, and it's nobody's business where or why. So that famous statement above is stunningly flawed.

I taught computer search techniques to LEOs, and we had lawyers from our legal staff speak to every class about the Fourth Amendment. If you want to get into the down and dirty of privacy, try me with something more substantial than your scattergun rants about authoritarian governments.

So you want to argue you have every expectation of going where you want, when you want, and it's nobody's business where or why? Try that argument at the entry gate to your nearest military base, and tell us how far you get. Go ahead and try getting to the cashier's till in a bar, casino, or bank. Geez, Louise!

darcane, I hope you don't think Big Brother is just government. Wall Street owns a lot, if not most, politicians. It doesn't matter who owns the cameras that record your movements. The Reddit posse and WalMart security cameras aren't significantly different from their government counterparts.

[Frank Lee]

Military bases and business cash registers and the like are clearly not public places.

You say all this spying and database keeping is legal; it must be stretching the 4th to it's very limits if not beyond.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If these activities do in fact not violate the letter of the law, they damn sure violate the spirit of the law.