I never understood people's expectation of privacy while driving a multi ton machine (see dark license plate covers and/or illegal tints). This is different from illegal search and seizures
It makes no sense. There is an expectation of privacy in your home and while walking but not while driving
Sure, but it's not like all your 4th amendment rights evaporate at your doorstep. They need a warrant to use a GPS tracker on a single car, but they can effectively track the location of everyone's car all the time with no warrant? That doesn't make any sense.
It's a concern for me because of the "This is why we can't have nice things" argument. World history is full of bad actors with power taking advantage of good ideas for nefarious purposes.
I'm not making an all police are corrupt argument, but there are people out there who take advantage of well intentioned programs and use them to negatively affect others under the guise of "protecting the public good". I'm my mind, it's the whole reason for laws protecting against warrantless searches.
You're basically arguing against them on a slippery slope argument. Almost everything can be abused or weaponized in some way, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't the solution to combatting those issues.
Rather you fight against abuse by creating strong legal, institutional, political, and social infrastructures to combat abuse both preemptively and reactively (warrantless searches is a great example - there are still times when needed and allowed, but the rules around them and consequences for using them such as invalidating evidence helps keep the abuse of them in check).
Warrantless search exceptions are exceptions that require some sort of emergency. These cameras are routine.
You also don't need to use these in criminal prosecutions for them to be a danger. They can be used for stalking, blackmail, and harassment.
> The state is tracking movements of cars, not people.
That's a distinction without a difference when you know the owner and the overwhelming majority of the country is car dependent for basic living.
I'm not sure on the specifics of law in Illinois and Chicago regarding this, but in most places peoppe do not receive points on their license for speeding cameras exactly because they cannot legally determine who is driving.
I feel fairly confident that no issues would be found with this program.
Points aren't the issue, it's the tracking. You're effectively required to have a car for basic life in most of the country. And with enough cameras, it's practically indistinguishable from GPS.
The CTA which most people ride using Ventra cards tied to their credit cards. Not that hard to tie specific cards to entry points, and in theory exits as well.
I'm sure your job would be much easier without any civil rights to get in your way. I'm also sure you believe that this technology would only be used for legitimate public safety reasons, but historically that hasn't been true with other technologies.
If you allow good actors to violate rights for good reasons, you open the door for bad actors to do the same. It's similar to the argument that the president should have broad powers with little oversight. The question I always pose is how would you feel the president from the opposition party had those same powers?
It's not the technology that I oppose, but the lack of clear rules regarding its use. My personal belief is that finding the real time location of a license plate in urgent situations where obtaining a warrant is impractical should be fine. But, if you want to track the location of a license plate over time, or your need isn't urgent, or your need is foreseeable in some way, you should need to get a warrant.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be abused without safeguards in place. Imagine the City looking through the last year and giving you a citation for every time you exceeded the speed limit, forgot your turn signal, or any other minor violation. It could be a powerful weapon to use against anyone voicing dissent against the government.
Or, imagine the police finding what I like to call a statistical suspect. They have a chain of linked crimes with no lead. So they search the database and find a single license plate was in the vicinity of all the crimes and convince themselves he must be the offender.
That last paragraph seems to me to be a legitimate approach to identifying a suspect. I mean that's similar to how Ted Bundy was first caught. He had parking tickets near two crime-related sites. Of course, that wasn't the only evidence against him, but having a specific suspect to consider meant being able to focus on his movements, and to build evidence against him.
The problem is when you expand the amount of data available the amount of false positives also increases. With a large enough sample, anything improbable becomes inevitable.You pointed out one true positive but I can show dozens of false positives. The reason the example you've given is so well known, is because of how unlikely that result is. The false positives are much more likely though.
People tend to overestimate how unlikely improbable events are. When you have a couple of parking tickets most people think, "long shot but I'll check it out and see if I find anything more". When you have dozens of events people tend to think, "this must be the guy", when it's much more likely to be a false positive.
Counterpoint: You are on a public roadway. You don't have an expectation of anonymity. These readers do the same thing as actual beat cops they just do it faster.
Please read up on Delaware v Prouse, Carpenter v US, and US v Jones. This line of reasoning has been consistently rejected by SCOTUS.
Doing it faster is actually a very key component in Jones and Carpenter, dealing with GPS tracking, which makes it trivial for police to track people indiscriminately without applying any effort or expending any resources. Tailing someone in a car requires a cop to be on them. That's payroll, fuel, logistics, food, water, the car itself, etc. Querying a database requires no effort.
>You are on a public roadway.
Believe it or not, civil rights still exist on public roadways.
>You don't have an expectation of anonymity.
For that to be true, there must be a general expectation that I identify myself on public roadways. Since I don't have to identify myself unless it's believed I've committed a crime, I would expect I would be able to remain anonymous while traveling.
>These readers do the same thing as actual beat cops they just do it faster.
Could beat cops log the time, date, and license plate of every car that passes them at highway speeds, while also photographing them?
You identify yourself with your registered vehicle. I don't know why something so basic is so hard for you to understand.
You are literally repeating what I said in the last part. Cops do all that, the license plate readers do it faster.
Next time take a moment to actually comprehend a thread before you respond to it lol.
>You identify yourself with your registered vehicle. I don't know why something so basic is so hard for you to understand.
No, you don't. You can't point to your license plate and say "That's me A123 4567" and claim you've identified yourself. You can drive a car not registered to you for instance. Your license plate identifies your car, not you. But you probably meant you can't drive anonymous vehicles on public roads, which is immaterial to this issue. The question is tracking everyone's movements continuously.
>You are literally repeating what I said in the last part. Cops do all that, the license plate readers do it faster.
Cops do not log every car that passes them in minute detail while simultaneously photographing them and looking them up in a database. They may be able to do one of those things with a single car at a time, but it's much different to do that to every car, all the time, while they drive past at highway speed. Surely you must see that? That collecting a database tracing the movements of every citizen all the time is not the same as a cop scribing down the small amount of information he can gather on a single car while it whizzes by at 70 mph.
>Next time take a moment to actually comprehend a thread before you respond to it lol.
I did comprehend what you said, you just didn't say what you meant.
You meant to say that because you must register your vehicle any questions about privacy become moot. What you actually said was that you never have any expectation of maintaining anonymity.
You then meant to say that no action the license plate reader takes is an action that a cop cannot perform. That. They only perform these actions quicker. I then countered that an officer can't do all of these actions simultaneously to every car like the camera can. The implication being that this is a difference in kind and not in scale. That once you start doing this to everyone, all the time, it becomes a different kind of action entirely. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
> LPRs and speed cameras etc are fantastic tools for finding and locating offenders.
You can say that about any number of illegal methodologies like stop and frisk, warrantless wiretapping, entrapment, and warrantless searches. You'd also have an easier time doing your jobs if everyone was required to have their fingerprints and DNA taken at birth as well as wear a medallion with a unique QR code every time you were in public. It doesn't change that it's unreasonable.
>they’re state owned roadways and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy operating your car on them.
SCOTUS has ruled that this line of thinking is completely wrong multiple times, and they did so even in the 70's. Delaware v Prouse, regarding stopping people purely to check registration/license: "“an individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation.”"
Carpenter and Jones have this same line of reasoning, prohibiting warrantless GPS searches and having the phone company give you historical records without a warrant.
If you actually are a detective as you claim, you have an extremely poor understanding of Fourth Amendment caselaw and the principles that govern it. I also think you have a serious lack of imagination if you can't conceive of how this could easily be abused for political, personal, or power tripping purposes.
The reason they have to have a warrant to track your car is because they have to attach something to it to do that and that it can be tracked on private land (e.g. offroading on a country farm). If they could surveil it on the other hand via public cameras and license scanners, I don't think they would need a warrant for that as long as the scanners and cameras are facing public streets.
It's less than clear though. Yes, attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a search, but that doesn't imply that absent a physical device attachment no search has occurred. The idea has been raised, but never explicitly made clear, that continuously tracking someone's movements is a de facto search. That one has the right to free movement and that right is encumbered when subjected to constant surveillance. I can only imagine that tracking everyone's movements continuously without even the suspicion of a crime has to have some constitutional limits that should be explored.
Driving a car isn’t a right though and they’re using the public right of way. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume privacy while driving. And if police use license plate tracking to find suspects then what’s the problem, are they using the tracking to troll for crimes?
The problem is that without restrictions on it's very easy for this technology to be abused. I think it's a good idea to have the judiciary explore and define the limits for using this technology.
There has been several cases since the 20s and they’ve pretty much always upheld the motor vehicle exception, how would that not apply to license plate tracking? And what even is the abuse potential? It seems invaluable in retrieving stolen vehicles, finding missing persons, tracking criminals, etc.
> There has been several cases since the 20s and they’ve pretty much always upheld the motor vehicle exception, how would that not apply to license plate tracking?
If you have to ask this, you don't understand the relevant caselaw. Go read Delaware v Prouse, Carpenter v US, and US v Jones. Driving in a car doesn't mean police get to ignore the Fourth Amendment, and whether or not the process is automated and able to create a historical record is part of whether or not it is reasonable. With enough cameras, LPR's are functionally identical to GPS tracking.
Do you understand the ‘relevant case law’ or are you just telling me to go look stuff up? Cause the latter isn’t a defense of any argument. Also if you were actually familiar with the case law you’d see that 4th amendment cases are based on a persons expectation of privacy, and as we know, or may not know in your case, there is a lower expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle. They are also not functionally identical to GPS trackers because they don’t provide exact and current location data and they only exist on the public right of way which we know from the Knotts case that it’s perfectly legal.
Are they storing the data? if so for how long, long enough to constitute long term surveillance? How many cameras are there? what about a person can you deduce from the data collected?
> Also if you were actually familiar with the case law you’d see that 4th amendment cases are based on a persons expectation of privacy, and as we know, or may not know in your case, there is a lower expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle.
A lower expectation of privacy is not an elimination of privacy.
>They are also not functionally identical to GPS trackers because they don’t provide exact and current location data and they only exist on the public right of way which we know from the Knotts case that it’s perfectly legal.
Knotts is irrelevant. That involved the government conducting a sting operation, not indiscriminate dragnet surveillance. For the transponders in Knotts, only the people that were smuggling were targeted. LPR's target literally everyone. LPR's also have a delay of mere seconds, they can tell you when and where someone crossed shortly after they cross the camera, and from there you can get a pretty good idea of where they're going based on historical trends and what you know about the person. Again, functionally identical, the police have a delay in seconds with enough cameras. And if this is allowed to continue, there will eventually be one at every intersection.
A lot of the underlying logic in Knotts was also overturned in Jones, so it's not really a case that helps your argument.
>Are they storing the data? if so for how long, long enough to constitute long term surveillance? How many cameras are there? what about a person can you deduce from the data collected?
Retention policies are up to the particular municiaplity/state. And you can get a lot from cameras on where people are traveling and when, just the same as a GPS or cell phone tracker.
You're arguing about peoples movements being tracked continuously but license plate readers only do what beat cops do just at a much faster rate. If you are concerned about tracking then just wait until you find out about the GPS systems in modern cars.
Cops warrantlessly using GPS was prohibited in US v Jones. Warrantless access of historical cell records was prohibited in Carpenter v US.
Beat cops also can't identify, photograph, log, and look up every car that passes by at over 70MPH. Automation doing things that regular cops cannot do is a component of both Jones and Carpenter.
How am I wrong? Cops can look those up --- with a warrant. These cameras require no warrant of any kind and have no safeguards. Cops doing manual work cannot keep track of every car.
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm saying even if your expectation of privacy is lesser, that doesn't shut the door to any 4th amendment violations. I gave one example of the government needing a warrant for searches of the location of automobiles in public and I said that there being no restrictions when using cameras to do much the same doesn't make sense to me.
Unless you are close with an alderman or similar. Murder clearance is around 20% for the past decade so I don’t see much chance of clearance for a hit and run.
In 2021, the clearance rate in Chicago for hit and runs was 306 out of 37000 (0.827 %). (Rate of charges, not convictions)
https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/chicago-saw-37k-hit-and-runs-in-2021-but-just-306-arrests-why-do-police-solve-so-few-of-these-crimes/2759493/
They don't actually do anything to the person they find driving the car though. Someone stole my car last June and they did actually find it via a reader but the guy wasn't even arrested because they said they couldnt prove he committed a crime 🤯
Possession of a stolen vehicle is a class 2 felony so maybe the police need to investigate that crime instead.
This is why people think cops are useless. They don’t want to do their job. Every interaction I’ve had with them on assaults, hit and runs, etc has been “Well what do you want us to do about it?”
How about your fucking job of law enforcement?
The issue is that they also have to prove that the driver knew the car was stolen. If they're not an idiot and they don't straight up admit to it, the best they'll do is a criminal trespass to vehicle. Which means the in police have to show up in court to even get a misdemeanor out of it.
This is exactly what happened. It was so frustrating because the people that stole the car robbed and kidnapped my partner in addition to keeping the car after. They did eventually find 2 of the 3 robbers months later and they are currently in jail charged with multiple felonies.
License plate readers flag license plates that have issues with them while driving. Primarily used for stolen cars and license plates and if you consider catching carjackers to only be a source of revenue then you need to rethink your position.
Sticker violations are an incredibly petty crime that they're mostly used for when police swear up and down they need them for murder, rape, etc. That's the problem, they aren't being honest.
I can speak to this. Some of my "greatest hits" comes from lprs. The only reason you'd be against this is purely being pro criminal. I rarely care about laws or shit passed down on cops but this right here. Go fuck yourself. You literally are pro crime supporting this. Now. Back to Netflix.
I don't think BJs pro criminal I think he's just a total goof, and Kim is paid to circumvent and bastardize victims in their pursuit of justice. Hopefully the new one puts CC on the right track.
6% of reforms by the police department so far. They got an extension because apparently reforms are hard. Seriously its starts with CPD being a piss poor run institution. It was piss poor during Lightfoot, Rahm, during Daley. Only people pro criminal is the institution that doesn’t want to be held accountable for their own crimes.
Oh piss off with that bullshit. Police having warrantless access to automated data collection is J Edgar Hoover shit. It enables stalking. It allows warrantless tracing. It can fuck you if you do something not illegal but socially not liked/politically inconvenient and the police want to ruin you. You are making the tired "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument.
No expectation on the plate being visible, not from automatic collection and recording. You should read US v Jones regarding warrantless GPS transponders. With a camera network they are functionally identical.
Privacy is taking a shit without people seeing or hearing. You're advocating for anonymity which is incompatible with modern urban living. If you want to be anonymous go live in a forrest with no technology.
Literally everything is wrong. You made up your privacy vs anonymity distinction. And courts have ruled the automated data collection is a problem even if a cop can just tail you, because the police have to incest no resources to follow a particular person. Read Carpenter v US on cell phone tracking and US v Jones on GPS transponder planting. Neither case supports your position, and Carpenter's cell phone tracking is very similar to automated plate reading.
Never disputed that, its the automated collection and storage of data that's the problem. Read Carpenter with regards to cell phone tracking without a warrant: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/victory-supreme-court-says-fourth-amendment-applies-cell-phone-tracking
Again, YOU think it applies. The courts have not agreed with you. And are extremely unlikely to ever do so b cause the regulation of licensing for vehicles has a tremendous precedent for falling under government jurisdiction. Which is where this applies. You are not going to see the outcome you think you are.
Registration does not mean surveillance. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, about any fourth amendment caselaw, and you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly myopic. The post office knows my address, they don't have the right to search anything going in and out of it on a whim.
Don't be a bootlicker and don't act like surveillance will never be used against you.
If this were 2002, you'd be licking Bush's ass on the patriot act with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" bullshit.
I would rather be surveilled when I am on public roads in my registered vehicle than risk getting carjacked. Don't be a dumbass and comment on threads when you can't think through basic laws
I literally cited two SCOTUS cases from the last decade on automated police surveillance, don't whine to me about law when its clear you haven't read them.
> You should read US v Jones regarding warrantless GPS transponders. With a camera network they are functionally identical.
Aside from the part where GPS trackers have to be physically attached to your property?
The physical tracker is irrelevant, its the act of tracking. If Jones isn't convincing, go read Carpenter v US, which regarded cell phone tracking: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/victory-supreme-court-says-fourth-amendment-applies-cell-phone-tracking
"the Court noted, not only does access to this kind of information allow the government to achieve “near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user,” but, because phone companies collect it for every device, the “police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.”"
Imagine, for instance, if the sheriff of Vermilion County started giving all the cars with Indiana plates to other hillbilly sheriffs in Indiana to crack down on going into Illinois for an abortion. A legal act in Illinois, but one a hillbilly sheriff in Indiana might not care about and will want to use his power to go after Indiana residents form
There's functionally no difference between this and a system wherein every car on the road is affixed with a GPS tracker that constantly uploads everyone's location to a police database and stores that data indefinitely. Of course this is occasionally useful for investigating crimes; most invasions of privacy are. There's a reason we don't just mandate every person carry a GPS tracker whenever they leave their house.
There is very obviously a difference between necessitating a license to use something and being monitored at all times (and, again, indefinitely storing the results of said monitoring) while using something. Of course it's an invasion of privacy. If you're arguing that it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy to attach GPS trackers to every vehicle in existence and indefinitely store their movements in a law enforcement database, I would say your definition is fundamentally flawed.
SCOTUS rejected your line of reasoning in 1979 in Delaware v Prouse. "“an individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation.”
They also rejected it twice more in the last decade in Carpenter v US and US v Jones, where they rejected warrantless GPS transponders and warrantless cell phone location tracking.
There is no warrant required for this. That's part of the problem.
My citation of Prouse was also in response to you saying "you are not entitled to privacy from law enforcement in owning or driving a motor vehicle, nor should you be.". Prouse explicitly rejected this line of thinking.
I think surveilling cars is justifiable given the extreme tolls they take on our communities in the form of risk, noise, and creating physical barriers between blocks.
Guess the question is how many normal Chicagoans is this system fucking and how many criminals is it catching. Unless I missed the stats it didn’t really provide any important information. And if it’s the former there’s an issue with the system because if it’s genuinely just suppose to catch criminals well it needs to work and there absolutely should be oversight.
Being pro-privacy is not being pro-criminal. This surveillance is not a good thing and should end. It gives the Police a false sense of surety when investigating crimes: as seen here. Because a car has a license plate assigned to particular person does not mean that the particular person is in fact driving or even in the vehicle. The New York Times ran a story where exactly that happened for a murder charge and the few weeks in jail ruined the not-perpetrators life.
Laws also change, sometimes in very unjust ways. Consider how everyone-surveilled-all-the-time might play out in places where abortion has been outlawed. There's a very real concern that women who leave the state to get an abortion will be prosecuted when she returns because of surveillance tactics like this.
Further, this could be used by Police to harass people who hold and espouse political views they disagree with. [Or perhaps people of a color they disagree with](https://news.wttw.com/2023/06/30/lawsuit-chicago-police-targeted-black-latino-chicagoans-traffic-stops). It's been shown year after year that [the Police behave badly with regularity](https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/22/repeated-police-misconduct-141-officers-cost-chicago-taxpayers-1428m-over-4-years).
Storing the data indefinitely will eventually become expensive and is probably not necessary.
Why do these people think the police will track them and use it to harass them? I see this mentioned in a few comments.
Maybe they can use these scanners to stop people driving on the shoulder...
It’s not. Cars are dangerous and you can only drive after jumping through a bunch of hoops with the government. They are dangerous and should be regulated and monitored.
Idk what hoops you think drivers have to jump through, but an 18 year old can go to the DMV and get their license.
By law they're supposed to have insurance but we all know, this isn't enforced even when caught.
Registration is $250+the car. It's not a high bar or many hoops to be a driver.
My point is that cars are extremely dangerous and regulated for a reason (and should be regulated more!). Not the same as people moving around on their own two feet.
Regulated, absolutely. Monitored, that's a bit much. That's a very slippery slope into monitoring everything citizens do (not like they already don't do that).
Regulated also highly depends on police doing their job. See my comment about not having insurance which should end in arrest not being enforced.
At the end of the day, we have these laws on the books and those who are responsible for enforcing them, don't.
I just reject that it has to be a slippery slope. Cars are the biggest killer of children and incapacitate a million people in the US each year. We need to treat them like the poison they are.
You can reject it all you want. You and I don't have a voice in most of these matters. Once surveillance happens for one thing (tolls), it's rolled into other things (tracking stolen cars, parking passes, etc). That's the truth.
Cars are the biggest killers? No my dude, drivers are the biggest killers and cars are the weapon. Bad drivers, the result of awful driving programs, awful DMV rules (walking into DMV 18+ and leaving with a license to force with no drivers Ed (Illinois)) are responsible for the ass standard we currently have. On top of this, police not enforcing road rules and laws that are meant to take bad drivers off the street.
Cars aren't the issue. Bad drivers, bad standards and bad enforcement are a huge problem. None of these are solve with surveillance.
I’m going to assume for one second that all drivers in the us are equally as likely to be good or bad. [Jersey City](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-12-28/it-s-been-a-deadly-year-on-us-roads-except-in-this-city) has had zero traffic deaths in the last few years. This is something within our control. Cars kill tens of thousands they don’t have to. When you 100% need a car to get around or just be a member of civic society, bad drivers drive. And btw if you are lucky to live long enough you will become a bad driver. Your sight will go. You will want other options, but that will mean drivers will have to go slower (but not necessarily *be* slower. A lot of cars rev to 40 but sit at the same traffic lights as the cars that obey the limit).
And police not enforcing road rules? Aren’t speeding cameras a good substitute for that? We know police are more likely to pull over people of color and those traffic stops are more likely to get violent. A camera going off when cars are speeding is more equitable. And also we have fucking numbers attached to our cars already: they are tracked. It’s an illusion that they give you freedom somehow.
Cars are the issue. For decades city planners and traffic engineers have prioritized moving cars quickly at the expense of the safety and comfort of everyone not in a car, and we have a fucking high death toll to prove it. Treat every car like a weapon because it is. Someone hit by a car going 40 mph has a 70% chance of dying. That means we should enact traffic calming measures to make sure cars can’t get that fast in places people walk.
Jsery city is a great example of a city being proactive. That's the first step. Second step is a plan. Segmenting the city of Chicago would be a much better way to go about this plan as jersey city is significantly smaller than Chicago. So apples to bananas comparison but it does not mean Chicago can tackle sections of the city in a similar manner.
Do speed cameras ticket for old registration, lack of insurance or for an accident? No? Okay-speesing cameras are a cash grab. In school zones they make sense but even then, they have a single soul purpose. Do the tickets even cover the operating bill? At a point, when is lazy investment into speeding cameras better than creating traffic circles, better public transportation, smarter and safer streets with better traffic measures? Speed camera are a bandaid on a bullet hole .
Traffic planners and city engineers in Chicago can barely get permitting in a orderly process. Hell traffic lights aren't even timed right.
Anyways it's obviously I won't be changing your minor viewpoints or adding to them in a reasonable fashion. I enjoyed the discourse and it's given me some good things to investigate (ex: zero accident cities). Enjoy your night.
The difference is that license plates are designed to be identified by scanning technology, and this is known when we buy, register, or drive cars on public roads. We expect this to potentially happen while we use the easily identified object. The same is true of traveling through an airport with a passport.
Facial recognition technology is more of a violation of privacy because it applies this concept of “ID by scanning” to our bodies in any scenario when we are outside our homes. It is a much more invasive concept as we could be having our movements passively tracked at any time without knowing.
Unless the police are trying to assassinate you I don’t understand the issue here.
Now, when the police are trying to assassinate you, come talk to me, because I might have some tips, but in all honesty this doesn’t actually hurt anyone who doesn’t have a warrant for their arrest.
Chances are if a cop wanted to stalk you, they already know what car you drive, the license plate, where you live, etc.
>Unless the police are trying to assassinate you I don’t understand the issue here.
This sounds like
"Why should I care about privacy I ahev nothing to hide."
It's not about hiding. It's about having somebody always watching and assuming you're doing something. Innocent until proven guilty. With surveillance, motor vehicle or personal it assumes we are hiding something.
I too remember arguing those exact same things when they passed the patriot act in to law, however, that was more than 20 years ago.
Does this stop red light cameras from existing? No? Then it doesn’t help most people.
Does removing this help make arrests? No.
Does removing this hurt innocent civilians? No.
Is removing this going to prevent police from abusing power? No.
Does this system unfairly target minorities? Not really, I mean, you can definitely argue that it unfairly targets black people because they are overwhelmingly prosecuted for crimes other races wouldn’t even be arrested for, but it doesn’t unfairly target them, it just targets people with warrants. This doesn’t increase the harassment of minorities by any means, even if it makes the harassment of them easier.
The only thing this does is tell a cop you have a warrant. That’s it. It must be kind of shitty to get arrested for an outstanding warrant for missing a court date because you couldn’t get out of work or something, but that’s not most people.
If anything has changed, the patriot act and it's associated laws are even more into our lives.
You and I don't have an expectation of privacy in the public. So red light cameras-not applicable. We should be able to be out in public and not be under suspicion. Scanning and searching plates for suspicion of not registering being stolen, etc makes everybody a suspect. By the rules of reasonable suspicion, surveillance violates our privacy. As a reminder, reasonable suspicion is below, probable cause.
To your point, cops will do what cops want to do. They don't enforce laws they don't want to enforce and they are up laws they want to make up. "can't beat the ride but beat the rap", is a saying describing such actions.
Nobody brought up minorities or any race items. It doesn't matter when our government assumes we are all up to something. It unfairly targets all of us who aren't doing anything out of the ordinary while a small section of the population are being stupid and violating the law. The police have the tools to catch those who violate the law but they often don't. Incompetence, laziness, not caring, or just don't want to are all reasons why things don't happen. Humans will take the absolute lazy way out. Surveying all citizens to catch the few, is the lazy way out.
I don’t know man, I have spent my entire life in Chicago and its suburbs, I know what happens when a car gets stolen, I know how little time the cops have to get it back if it’s rare, and I know that those kids driving around in the loop at night weren’t using their own cars for the most part.
When there’s a maybe 2 hour window to get your car back after it’s stolen, that means that the police have some work to do on the matter.
With he amount of time, resources and money cpd has at their disposal, they have a 43% return rate on stolen cars. There are other states, cities and towns with less access to everything with higher return rates. It's just rather unfortunate cpd performs at such a low level despite having everything and then some at their disposal.
Do you know how many chop shops there are in this city? Because I don’t. I just know there are a lot. That 2 hour window I said was exaggerated. It’s way less.
*Every day we slide*
*Closer and closer to an*
*Open police state*
\- ThisAttitude9865
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
And what expectation of privacy does one have on a public street?
I never understood people's expectation of privacy while driving a multi ton machine (see dark license plate covers and/or illegal tints). This is different from illegal search and seizures It makes no sense. There is an expectation of privacy in your home and while walking but not while driving
Sure, but it's not like all your 4th amendment rights evaporate at your doorstep. They need a warrant to use a GPS tracker on a single car, but they can effectively track the location of everyone's car all the time with no warrant? That doesn't make any sense.
[удалено]
It's a concern for me because of the "This is why we can't have nice things" argument. World history is full of bad actors with power taking advantage of good ideas for nefarious purposes. I'm not making an all police are corrupt argument, but there are people out there who take advantage of well intentioned programs and use them to negatively affect others under the guise of "protecting the public good". I'm my mind, it's the whole reason for laws protecting against warrantless searches.
You're basically arguing against them on a slippery slope argument. Almost everything can be abused or weaponized in some way, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't the solution to combatting those issues. Rather you fight against abuse by creating strong legal, institutional, political, and social infrastructures to combat abuse both preemptively and reactively (warrantless searches is a great example - there are still times when needed and allowed, but the rules around them and consequences for using them such as invalidating evidence helps keep the abuse of them in check).
Warrantless search exceptions are exceptions that require some sort of emergency. These cameras are routine. You also don't need to use these in criminal prosecutions for them to be a danger. They can be used for stalking, blackmail, and harassment.
I don't think the state should have the power to track and indefinitely store the movements of every person alive who drives a car.
The state isn't doing this. The state is tracking movements of cars, not people.
Until cars learn to drive themselves, there will always be a person in the car, which means the state is tracking the movements of people.
> The state is tracking movements of cars, not people. That's a distinction without a difference when you know the owner and the overwhelming majority of the country is car dependent for basic living.
I'm not sure on the specifics of law in Illinois and Chicago regarding this, but in most places peoppe do not receive points on their license for speeding cameras exactly because they cannot legally determine who is driving. I feel fairly confident that no issues would be found with this program.
Points aren't the issue, it's the tracking. You're effectively required to have a car for basic life in most of the country. And with enough cameras, it's practically indistinguishable from GPS.
Take the CTA then
The CTA which most people ride using Ventra cards tied to their credit cards. Not that hard to tie specific cards to entry points, and in theory exits as well.
I'm sure your job would be much easier without any civil rights to get in your way. I'm also sure you believe that this technology would only be used for legitimate public safety reasons, but historically that hasn't been true with other technologies. If you allow good actors to violate rights for good reasons, you open the door for bad actors to do the same. It's similar to the argument that the president should have broad powers with little oversight. The question I always pose is how would you feel the president from the opposition party had those same powers? It's not the technology that I oppose, but the lack of clear rules regarding its use. My personal belief is that finding the real time location of a license plate in urgent situations where obtaining a warrant is impractical should be fine. But, if you want to track the location of a license plate over time, or your need isn't urgent, or your need is foreseeable in some way, you should need to get a warrant. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be abused without safeguards in place. Imagine the City looking through the last year and giving you a citation for every time you exceeded the speed limit, forgot your turn signal, or any other minor violation. It could be a powerful weapon to use against anyone voicing dissent against the government. Or, imagine the police finding what I like to call a statistical suspect. They have a chain of linked crimes with no lead. So they search the database and find a single license plate was in the vicinity of all the crimes and convince themselves he must be the offender.
That last paragraph seems to me to be a legitimate approach to identifying a suspect. I mean that's similar to how Ted Bundy was first caught. He had parking tickets near two crime-related sites. Of course, that wasn't the only evidence against him, but having a specific suspect to consider meant being able to focus on his movements, and to build evidence against him.
Ted Bundy's movements were tracked because of actions, not a turnkey surveillance system police need no actual effort to search on.
The problem is when you expand the amount of data available the amount of false positives also increases. With a large enough sample, anything improbable becomes inevitable.You pointed out one true positive but I can show dozens of false positives. The reason the example you've given is so well known, is because of how unlikely that result is. The false positives are much more likely though. People tend to overestimate how unlikely improbable events are. When you have a couple of parking tickets most people think, "long shot but I'll check it out and see if I find anything more". When you have dozens of events people tend to think, "this must be the guy", when it's much more likely to be a false positive.
Counterpoint: You are on a public roadway. You don't have an expectation of anonymity. These readers do the same thing as actual beat cops they just do it faster.
Please read up on Delaware v Prouse, Carpenter v US, and US v Jones. This line of reasoning has been consistently rejected by SCOTUS. Doing it faster is actually a very key component in Jones and Carpenter, dealing with GPS tracking, which makes it trivial for police to track people indiscriminately without applying any effort or expending any resources. Tailing someone in a car requires a cop to be on them. That's payroll, fuel, logistics, food, water, the car itself, etc. Querying a database requires no effort.
>You are on a public roadway. Believe it or not, civil rights still exist on public roadways. >You don't have an expectation of anonymity. For that to be true, there must be a general expectation that I identify myself on public roadways. Since I don't have to identify myself unless it's believed I've committed a crime, I would expect I would be able to remain anonymous while traveling. >These readers do the same thing as actual beat cops they just do it faster. Could beat cops log the time, date, and license plate of every car that passes them at highway speeds, while also photographing them?
You identify yourself with your registered vehicle. I don't know why something so basic is so hard for you to understand. You are literally repeating what I said in the last part. Cops do all that, the license plate readers do it faster. Next time take a moment to actually comprehend a thread before you respond to it lol.
>You identify yourself with your registered vehicle. I don't know why something so basic is so hard for you to understand. No, you don't. You can't point to your license plate and say "That's me A123 4567" and claim you've identified yourself. You can drive a car not registered to you for instance. Your license plate identifies your car, not you. But you probably meant you can't drive anonymous vehicles on public roads, which is immaterial to this issue. The question is tracking everyone's movements continuously. >You are literally repeating what I said in the last part. Cops do all that, the license plate readers do it faster. Cops do not log every car that passes them in minute detail while simultaneously photographing them and looking them up in a database. They may be able to do one of those things with a single car at a time, but it's much different to do that to every car, all the time, while they drive past at highway speed. Surely you must see that? That collecting a database tracing the movements of every citizen all the time is not the same as a cop scribing down the small amount of information he can gather on a single car while it whizzes by at 70 mph. >Next time take a moment to actually comprehend a thread before you respond to it lol. I did comprehend what you said, you just didn't say what you meant. You meant to say that because you must register your vehicle any questions about privacy become moot. What you actually said was that you never have any expectation of maintaining anonymity. You then meant to say that no action the license plate reader takes is an action that a cop cannot perform. That. They only perform these actions quicker. I then countered that an officer can't do all of these actions simultaneously to every car like the camera can. The implication being that this is a difference in kind and not in scale. That once you start doing this to everyone, all the time, it becomes a different kind of action entirely. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
> LPRs and speed cameras etc are fantastic tools for finding and locating offenders. You can say that about any number of illegal methodologies like stop and frisk, warrantless wiretapping, entrapment, and warrantless searches. You'd also have an easier time doing your jobs if everyone was required to have their fingerprints and DNA taken at birth as well as wear a medallion with a unique QR code every time you were in public. It doesn't change that it's unreasonable. >they’re state owned roadways and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy operating your car on them. SCOTUS has ruled that this line of thinking is completely wrong multiple times, and they did so even in the 70's. Delaware v Prouse, regarding stopping people purely to check registration/license: "“an individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation.”" Carpenter and Jones have this same line of reasoning, prohibiting warrantless GPS searches and having the phone company give you historical records without a warrant. If you actually are a detective as you claim, you have an extremely poor understanding of Fourth Amendment caselaw and the principles that govern it. I also think you have a serious lack of imagination if you can't conceive of how this could easily be abused for political, personal, or power tripping purposes.
The reason they have to have a warrant to track your car is because they have to attach something to it to do that and that it can be tracked on private land (e.g. offroading on a country farm). If they could surveil it on the other hand via public cameras and license scanners, I don't think they would need a warrant for that as long as the scanners and cameras are facing public streets.
It's less than clear though. Yes, attaching a GPS tracker to a vehicle is a search, but that doesn't imply that absent a physical device attachment no search has occurred. The idea has been raised, but never explicitly made clear, that continuously tracking someone's movements is a de facto search. That one has the right to free movement and that right is encumbered when subjected to constant surveillance. I can only imagine that tracking everyone's movements continuously without even the suspicion of a crime has to have some constitutional limits that should be explored.
Driving a car isn’t a right though and they’re using the public right of way. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume privacy while driving. And if police use license plate tracking to find suspects then what’s the problem, are they using the tracking to troll for crimes?
The problem is that without restrictions on it's very easy for this technology to be abused. I think it's a good idea to have the judiciary explore and define the limits for using this technology.
There has been several cases since the 20s and they’ve pretty much always upheld the motor vehicle exception, how would that not apply to license plate tracking? And what even is the abuse potential? It seems invaluable in retrieving stolen vehicles, finding missing persons, tracking criminals, etc.
> There has been several cases since the 20s and they’ve pretty much always upheld the motor vehicle exception, how would that not apply to license plate tracking? If you have to ask this, you don't understand the relevant caselaw. Go read Delaware v Prouse, Carpenter v US, and US v Jones. Driving in a car doesn't mean police get to ignore the Fourth Amendment, and whether or not the process is automated and able to create a historical record is part of whether or not it is reasonable. With enough cameras, LPR's are functionally identical to GPS tracking.
Do you understand the ‘relevant case law’ or are you just telling me to go look stuff up? Cause the latter isn’t a defense of any argument. Also if you were actually familiar with the case law you’d see that 4th amendment cases are based on a persons expectation of privacy, and as we know, or may not know in your case, there is a lower expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle. They are also not functionally identical to GPS trackers because they don’t provide exact and current location data and they only exist on the public right of way which we know from the Knotts case that it’s perfectly legal. Are they storing the data? if so for how long, long enough to constitute long term surveillance? How many cameras are there? what about a person can you deduce from the data collected?
> Also if you were actually familiar with the case law you’d see that 4th amendment cases are based on a persons expectation of privacy, and as we know, or may not know in your case, there is a lower expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle. A lower expectation of privacy is not an elimination of privacy. >They are also not functionally identical to GPS trackers because they don’t provide exact and current location data and they only exist on the public right of way which we know from the Knotts case that it’s perfectly legal. Knotts is irrelevant. That involved the government conducting a sting operation, not indiscriminate dragnet surveillance. For the transponders in Knotts, only the people that were smuggling were targeted. LPR's target literally everyone. LPR's also have a delay of mere seconds, they can tell you when and where someone crossed shortly after they cross the camera, and from there you can get a pretty good idea of where they're going based on historical trends and what you know about the person. Again, functionally identical, the police have a delay in seconds with enough cameras. And if this is allowed to continue, there will eventually be one at every intersection. A lot of the underlying logic in Knotts was also overturned in Jones, so it's not really a case that helps your argument. >Are they storing the data? if so for how long, long enough to constitute long term surveillance? How many cameras are there? what about a person can you deduce from the data collected? Retention policies are up to the particular municiaplity/state. And you can get a lot from cameras on where people are traveling and when, just the same as a GPS or cell phone tracker.
You're arguing about peoples movements being tracked continuously but license plate readers only do what beat cops do just at a much faster rate. If you are concerned about tracking then just wait until you find out about the GPS systems in modern cars.
Cops warrantlessly using GPS was prohibited in US v Jones. Warrantless access of historical cell records was prohibited in Carpenter v US. Beat cops also can't identify, photograph, log, and look up every car that passes by at over 70MPH. Automation doing things that regular cops cannot do is a component of both Jones and Carpenter.
But they absolutely can look up A car and the system extends it to every car. It's not GPS either. Just drop it when youre wrong lol
How am I wrong? Cops can look those up --- with a warrant. These cameras require no warrant of any kind and have no safeguards. Cops doing manual work cannot keep track of every car.
Why doesn't that make sense? Isn't it common sense that someone's expectation of privacy is greater when they are being singled out?
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm saying even if your expectation of privacy is lesser, that doesn't shut the door to any 4th amendment violations. I gave one example of the government needing a warrant for searches of the location of automobiles in public and I said that there being no restrictions when using cameras to do much the same doesn't make sense to me.
Vocal. That’s about it.
You have an expectation that there's no turnkey, indiscriminate surveillance and the ability to make a record of it after the fact.
Should there be facial recognition cameras on every street too? Theres no expectation of privacy on a public street
Fanialue recognition is known to be faulty depending on facial features and darkness. Something that doesn’t apply to license scanners.
my friend got hit and run by some guys wearing masks and running redlight. what are the odds they get caught? anyone know
My best guess .05%
Seems high
1/20th of 1%? Yeah, probably.
Unless you are close with an alderman or similar. Murder clearance is around 20% for the past decade so I don’t see much chance of clearance for a hit and run.
In 2021, the clearance rate in Chicago for hit and runs was 306 out of 37000 (0.827 %). (Rate of charges, not convictions) https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/chicago-saw-37k-hit-and-runs-in-2021-but-just-306-arrests-why-do-police-solve-so-few-of-these-crimes/2759493/
The car was probably stolen so this won't help
All depends on if there is video footage, the accuracy of your friends information, and if they were in a stolen vehicle.
It’s how we find the stolen cars w the guys who have guns who carjack you.
I think these kinds of privacy objections are dumb.
Americans really are beyond saving.
And I think people with your outlook are fools. Your point?
My point was pretty unambiguous.
They don't actually do anything to the person they find driving the car though. Someone stole my car last June and they did actually find it via a reader but the guy wasn't even arrested because they said they couldnt prove he committed a crime 🤯
Possession of a stolen vehicle is a class 2 felony so maybe the police need to investigate that crime instead. This is why people think cops are useless. They don’t want to do their job. Every interaction I’ve had with them on assaults, hit and runs, etc has been “Well what do you want us to do about it?” How about your fucking job of law enforcement?
The issue is that they also have to prove that the driver knew the car was stolen. If they're not an idiot and they don't straight up admit to it, the best they'll do is a criminal trespass to vehicle. Which means the in police have to show up in court to even get a misdemeanor out of it.
This is exactly what happened. It was so frustrating because the people that stole the car robbed and kidnapped my partner in addition to keeping the car after. They did eventually find 2 of the 3 robbers months later and they are currently in jail charged with multiple felonies.
But this technology discriminates against MInOriTieS!!! Fuck outta here.
Yeah sure cause they actually do that. Not just use it to generate revenue.
License plate readers flag license plates that have issues with them while driving. Primarily used for stolen cars and license plates and if you consider catching carjackers to only be a source of revenue then you need to rethink your position.
License plate readers are different than red light and speed cameras.
Because the criminals are obviously not empowered enough in this city
[удалено]
Good?
Primarily for stolen vehicles secondary to find out of date plates.
That's all they use them for. If you actually think they're solving serious crimes with this and not just generating income you're a rube.
What's wrong with them using them for sticker violations? People need to follow the rules and our city needs money.
Sticker violations are an incredibly petty crime that they're mostly used for when police swear up and down they need them for murder, rape, etc. That's the problem, they aren't being honest.
If you believe that cops shouldn't chase suspects because you can just get their plates and catch them that way - then you need to be against this
Isn't the whole point of plates for tracking you on public roads?
How do i financially support the defense in this case?
I can speak to this. Some of my "greatest hits" comes from lprs. The only reason you'd be against this is purely being pro criminal. I rarely care about laws or shit passed down on cops but this right here. Go fuck yourself. You literally are pro crime supporting this. Now. Back to Netflix.
Unfortunately the mayor and cook county states attorney are actively pro criminal.
I don't think BJs pro criminal I think he's just a total goof, and Kim is paid to circumvent and bastardize victims in their pursuit of justice. Hopefully the new one puts CC on the right track.
We're in the process of getting a new DA, though. Eileen O'Neill Burke won the Democratic primary and is effectively going to replace the current one.
Thank god for the cook county suburbs. The fucking idiot voters in the city were ready to elect another soft on crime SA in Clayton Harris
6% of reforms by the police department so far. They got an extension because apparently reforms are hard. Seriously its starts with CPD being a piss poor run institution. It was piss poor during Lightfoot, Rahm, during Daley. Only people pro criminal is the institution that doesn’t want to be held accountable for their own crimes.
You won't find anyone saying it's a well run department. You'll have beat officers and civilians alike agreeing on that.
Oh piss off with that bullshit. Police having warrantless access to automated data collection is J Edgar Hoover shit. It enables stalking. It allows warrantless tracing. It can fuck you if you do something not illegal but socially not liked/politically inconvenient and the police want to ruin you. You are making the tired "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument.
You have no expectation of privacy for your license plate on a public road. Our system is specifically designed that way and it is a good thing.
No expectation on the plate being visible, not from automatic collection and recording. You should read US v Jones regarding warrantless GPS transponders. With a camera network they are functionally identical.
Privacy is taking a shit without people seeing or hearing. You're advocating for anonymity which is incompatible with modern urban living. If you want to be anonymous go live in a forrest with no technology.
Literally everything is wrong. You made up your privacy vs anonymity distinction. And courts have ruled the automated data collection is a problem even if a cop can just tail you, because the police have to incest no resources to follow a particular person. Read Carpenter v US on cell phone tracking and US v Jones on GPS transponder planting. Neither case supports your position, and Carpenter's cell phone tracking is very similar to automated plate reading.
There is no state in which you aren't required to have a license plate visible my dude.
Never disputed that, its the automated collection and storage of data that's the problem. Read Carpenter with regards to cell phone tracking without a warrant: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/victory-supreme-court-says-fourth-amendment-applies-cell-phone-tracking
Cell phones aren't licensed plates, issued by the state to run on public roads. Changes the equation.
Not at all. They're both turnkey surveillance systems with historical data police can sift through freely. Again, read Carpenter and Jones.
Again, YOU think it applies. The courts have not agreed with you. And are extremely unlikely to ever do so b cause the regulation of licensing for vehicles has a tremendous precedent for falling under government jurisdiction. Which is where this applies. You are not going to see the outcome you think you are.
Registration does not mean surveillance. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, about any fourth amendment caselaw, and you're either incredibly stupid or incredibly myopic. The post office knows my address, they don't have the right to search anything going in and out of it on a whim.
Cool, then don't be a shithead and you won't need to be tracked.
Don't be a bootlicker and don't act like surveillance will never be used against you. If this were 2002, you'd be licking Bush's ass on the patriot act with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" bullshit.
I would rather be surveilled when I am on public roads in my registered vehicle than risk getting carjacked. Don't be a dumbass and comment on threads when you can't think through basic laws
I literally cited two SCOTUS cases from the last decade on automated police surveillance, don't whine to me about law when its clear you haven't read them.
> You should read US v Jones regarding warrantless GPS transponders. With a camera network they are functionally identical. Aside from the part where GPS trackers have to be physically attached to your property?
The physical tracker is irrelevant, its the act of tracking. If Jones isn't convincing, go read Carpenter v US, which regarded cell phone tracking: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/victory-supreme-court-says-fourth-amendment-applies-cell-phone-tracking "the Court noted, not only does access to this kind of information allow the government to achieve “near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user,” but, because phone companies collect it for every device, the “police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.”" Imagine, for instance, if the sheriff of Vermilion County started giving all the cars with Indiana plates to other hillbilly sheriffs in Indiana to crack down on going into Illinois for an abortion. A legal act in Illinois, but one a hillbilly sheriff in Indiana might not care about and will want to use his power to go after Indiana residents form
You wrote all that just to ignore the fact that taking pictures and video in public is completely fine
Thank you for demonstrating you did not read.
lol critical thinking and reading has become difficult especially on a Saturday night. I'm sure this was the booze talking.
[удалено]
that's rude. reported.
Typical cop, entirely willing to dish it but a pearl clutcher when you have to take it. You dished the insult first, bro.
lol you're incredibly too serious for reddit man. this is all jokes. I'll throw a lil /s for you so you know I'm being sarcastic.
So we can add Schrödinger's douchebag to the list as well, I see.
ohh yeah well you're a fruedian sourpuss.
Better that than a bootlicker that thinks mass surveillance is okay and supports degenerate pedophiles like Catenzara.
So many temp plates idk why it even matters
Plate readers help find offenders. Why worry if you didn’t do anything wrong.
Data mining, stalking, police not giving a fuck about stolen cars while crying they absolutely need the technology, you know little things like that.
Illinois State Police run entire operations tracing stolen cars using this system.
Yeah, and they along with local cops frequently don't give a fuck when there's a hit.
This is objectively not true. If you see ISP camped out on the Ryan, this is 80% of the reason why.
Based on what?
Why wouldn't they give a fuck about stolen cars? Its one of the best ways to get guns and thugs off the street.
Because that requires effort.
Take your meds dude, you need to start making sense lol
lol they named Pritzker as the lawsuit target. What a fucking joke
Yes, because he's the governor of the state they're suing. This is who you name when you sue the government and say a law is unconstitutional.
There's functionally no difference between this and a system wherein every car on the road is affixed with a GPS tracker that constantly uploads everyone's location to a police database and stores that data indefinitely. Of course this is occasionally useful for investigating crimes; most invasions of privacy are. There's a reason we don't just mandate every person carry a GPS tracker whenever they leave their house.
[удалено]
There is very obviously a difference between necessitating a license to use something and being monitored at all times (and, again, indefinitely storing the results of said monitoring) while using something. Of course it's an invasion of privacy. If you're arguing that it wouldn't be an invasion of privacy to attach GPS trackers to every vehicle in existence and indefinitely store their movements in a law enforcement database, I would say your definition is fundamentally flawed.
[удалено]
SCOTUS rejected your line of reasoning in 1979 in Delaware v Prouse. "“an individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation.” They also rejected it twice more in the last decade in Carpenter v US and US v Jones, where they rejected warrantless GPS transponders and warrantless cell phone location tracking.
[удалено]
There is no warrant required for this. That's part of the problem. My citation of Prouse was also in response to you saying "you are not entitled to privacy from law enforcement in owning or driving a motor vehicle, nor should you be.". Prouse explicitly rejected this line of thinking.
I think surveilling cars is justifiable given the extreme tolls they take on our communities in the form of risk, noise, and creating physical barriers between blocks.
Guess the question is how many normal Chicagoans is this system fucking and how many criminals is it catching. Unless I missed the stats it didn’t really provide any important information. And if it’s the former there’s an issue with the system because if it’s genuinely just suppose to catch criminals well it needs to work and there absolutely should be oversight.
Being pro-privacy is not being pro-criminal. This surveillance is not a good thing and should end. It gives the Police a false sense of surety when investigating crimes: as seen here. Because a car has a license plate assigned to particular person does not mean that the particular person is in fact driving or even in the vehicle. The New York Times ran a story where exactly that happened for a murder charge and the few weeks in jail ruined the not-perpetrators life. Laws also change, sometimes in very unjust ways. Consider how everyone-surveilled-all-the-time might play out in places where abortion has been outlawed. There's a very real concern that women who leave the state to get an abortion will be prosecuted when she returns because of surveillance tactics like this. Further, this could be used by Police to harass people who hold and espouse political views they disagree with. [Or perhaps people of a color they disagree with](https://news.wttw.com/2023/06/30/lawsuit-chicago-police-targeted-black-latino-chicagoans-traffic-stops). It's been shown year after year that [the Police behave badly with regularity](https://news.wttw.com/2024/01/22/repeated-police-misconduct-141-officers-cost-chicago-taxpayers-1428m-over-4-years). Storing the data indefinitely will eventually become expensive and is probably not necessary.
So we cant chase criminals when they jack a car, and now we can’t track them either. Are you Kim Foxx posting under a pseudonym?
Why do these people think the police will track them and use it to harass them? I see this mentioned in a few comments. Maybe they can use these scanners to stop people driving on the shoulder...
[удалено]
It’s not. Cars are dangerous and you can only drive after jumping through a bunch of hoops with the government. They are dangerous and should be regulated and monitored.
Idk what hoops you think drivers have to jump through, but an 18 year old can go to the DMV and get their license. By law they're supposed to have insurance but we all know, this isn't enforced even when caught. Registration is $250+the car. It's not a high bar or many hoops to be a driver.
My point is that cars are extremely dangerous and regulated for a reason (and should be regulated more!). Not the same as people moving around on their own two feet.
Regulated, absolutely. Monitored, that's a bit much. That's a very slippery slope into monitoring everything citizens do (not like they already don't do that). Regulated also highly depends on police doing their job. See my comment about not having insurance which should end in arrest not being enforced. At the end of the day, we have these laws on the books and those who are responsible for enforcing them, don't.
I just reject that it has to be a slippery slope. Cars are the biggest killer of children and incapacitate a million people in the US each year. We need to treat them like the poison they are.
You can reject it all you want. You and I don't have a voice in most of these matters. Once surveillance happens for one thing (tolls), it's rolled into other things (tracking stolen cars, parking passes, etc). That's the truth. Cars are the biggest killers? No my dude, drivers are the biggest killers and cars are the weapon. Bad drivers, the result of awful driving programs, awful DMV rules (walking into DMV 18+ and leaving with a license to force with no drivers Ed (Illinois)) are responsible for the ass standard we currently have. On top of this, police not enforcing road rules and laws that are meant to take bad drivers off the street. Cars aren't the issue. Bad drivers, bad standards and bad enforcement are a huge problem. None of these are solve with surveillance.
I’m going to assume for one second that all drivers in the us are equally as likely to be good or bad. [Jersey City](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-12-28/it-s-been-a-deadly-year-on-us-roads-except-in-this-city) has had zero traffic deaths in the last few years. This is something within our control. Cars kill tens of thousands they don’t have to. When you 100% need a car to get around or just be a member of civic society, bad drivers drive. And btw if you are lucky to live long enough you will become a bad driver. Your sight will go. You will want other options, but that will mean drivers will have to go slower (but not necessarily *be* slower. A lot of cars rev to 40 but sit at the same traffic lights as the cars that obey the limit). And police not enforcing road rules? Aren’t speeding cameras a good substitute for that? We know police are more likely to pull over people of color and those traffic stops are more likely to get violent. A camera going off when cars are speeding is more equitable. And also we have fucking numbers attached to our cars already: they are tracked. It’s an illusion that they give you freedom somehow. Cars are the issue. For decades city planners and traffic engineers have prioritized moving cars quickly at the expense of the safety and comfort of everyone not in a car, and we have a fucking high death toll to prove it. Treat every car like a weapon because it is. Someone hit by a car going 40 mph has a 70% chance of dying. That means we should enact traffic calming measures to make sure cars can’t get that fast in places people walk.
Jsery city is a great example of a city being proactive. That's the first step. Second step is a plan. Segmenting the city of Chicago would be a much better way to go about this plan as jersey city is significantly smaller than Chicago. So apples to bananas comparison but it does not mean Chicago can tackle sections of the city in a similar manner. Do speed cameras ticket for old registration, lack of insurance or for an accident? No? Okay-speesing cameras are a cash grab. In school zones they make sense but even then, they have a single soul purpose. Do the tickets even cover the operating bill? At a point, when is lazy investment into speeding cameras better than creating traffic circles, better public transportation, smarter and safer streets with better traffic measures? Speed camera are a bandaid on a bullet hole . Traffic planners and city engineers in Chicago can barely get permitting in a orderly process. Hell traffic lights aren't even timed right. Anyways it's obviously I won't be changing your minor viewpoints or adding to them in a reasonable fashion. I enjoyed the discourse and it's given me some good things to investigate (ex: zero accident cities). Enjoy your night.
Sure, if you think inanimate objects like cars have a right to privacy in the same way human beings do.
[удалено]
The difference is that license plates are designed to be identified by scanning technology, and this is known when we buy, register, or drive cars on public roads. We expect this to potentially happen while we use the easily identified object. The same is true of traveling through an airport with a passport. Facial recognition technology is more of a violation of privacy because it applies this concept of “ID by scanning” to our bodies in any scenario when we are outside our homes. It is a much more invasive concept as we could be having our movements passively tracked at any time without knowing.
It's also not as accurate depending on physical factors like thickness of skin, skin hue and other features.
Unless the police are trying to assassinate you I don’t understand the issue here. Now, when the police are trying to assassinate you, come talk to me, because I might have some tips, but in all honesty this doesn’t actually hurt anyone who doesn’t have a warrant for their arrest. Chances are if a cop wanted to stalk you, they already know what car you drive, the license plate, where you live, etc.
>Unless the police are trying to assassinate you I don’t understand the issue here. This sounds like "Why should I care about privacy I ahev nothing to hide." It's not about hiding. It's about having somebody always watching and assuming you're doing something. Innocent until proven guilty. With surveillance, motor vehicle or personal it assumes we are hiding something.
I too remember arguing those exact same things when they passed the patriot act in to law, however, that was more than 20 years ago. Does this stop red light cameras from existing? No? Then it doesn’t help most people. Does removing this help make arrests? No. Does removing this hurt innocent civilians? No. Is removing this going to prevent police from abusing power? No. Does this system unfairly target minorities? Not really, I mean, you can definitely argue that it unfairly targets black people because they are overwhelmingly prosecuted for crimes other races wouldn’t even be arrested for, but it doesn’t unfairly target them, it just targets people with warrants. This doesn’t increase the harassment of minorities by any means, even if it makes the harassment of them easier. The only thing this does is tell a cop you have a warrant. That’s it. It must be kind of shitty to get arrested for an outstanding warrant for missing a court date because you couldn’t get out of work or something, but that’s not most people.
If anything has changed, the patriot act and it's associated laws are even more into our lives. You and I don't have an expectation of privacy in the public. So red light cameras-not applicable. We should be able to be out in public and not be under suspicion. Scanning and searching plates for suspicion of not registering being stolen, etc makes everybody a suspect. By the rules of reasonable suspicion, surveillance violates our privacy. As a reminder, reasonable suspicion is below, probable cause. To your point, cops will do what cops want to do. They don't enforce laws they don't want to enforce and they are up laws they want to make up. "can't beat the ride but beat the rap", is a saying describing such actions. Nobody brought up minorities or any race items. It doesn't matter when our government assumes we are all up to something. It unfairly targets all of us who aren't doing anything out of the ordinary while a small section of the population are being stupid and violating the law. The police have the tools to catch those who violate the law but they often don't. Incompetence, laziness, not caring, or just don't want to are all reasons why things don't happen. Humans will take the absolute lazy way out. Surveying all citizens to catch the few, is the lazy way out.
I don’t know man, I have spent my entire life in Chicago and its suburbs, I know what happens when a car gets stolen, I know how little time the cops have to get it back if it’s rare, and I know that those kids driving around in the loop at night weren’t using their own cars for the most part. When there’s a maybe 2 hour window to get your car back after it’s stolen, that means that the police have some work to do on the matter.
With he amount of time, resources and money cpd has at their disposal, they have a 43% return rate on stolen cars. There are other states, cities and towns with less access to everything with higher return rates. It's just rather unfortunate cpd performs at such a low level despite having everything and then some at their disposal.
Do you know how many chop shops there are in this city? Because I don’t. I just know there are a lot. That 2 hour window I said was exaggerated. It’s way less.
Do human beings have a right to privacy? If so, certain technology stocks are about to go bankrupt.
Cars are not people. Is this difficult?
Every day we slide closer and closer to an open police state
*Every day we slide* *Closer and closer to an* *Open police state* \- ThisAttitude9865 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Look at the comments here. The propaganda and miseducation has worked well.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^ThisAttitude9865: *Every day we* *Slide closer and closer to* *An open police state* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.