Big Brother Arrives in Phoenix

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Nice spin they put on it, saying that it's all about finding stolen
> vehicles, and only later admitting that "oh, well, yeah, it could also
> be used to track people" (which they then attempt to spon as a
> benefit).

Seems like you get it now.

> http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/144548

> PHOENIX ? State police can't keep your car from being stolen. But new
> equipment being installed on patrol cars could result in your getting
> it back ? and faster.
> The Department of Public Safety has installed a system on the front of
> six vehicles ? with more planned ? that "reads" the license plates of
> other cars and trucks on the road.

This sounds like the same tracking system that is presently in use in
the UK. If it isn't it's the same theme.

> The new system is raising some privacy concerns.
> Longman said no one's privacy is invaded since the vehicles are
> traveling on public highways.
> But he acknowledged the system is capable of storing information on
> all the license plates scanned, including when and where they were
> spotted, and not just those that trigger a "hit."

And that's the problem. An observer at the side of the road isn't
recording the plate numbers for later retrivial, the machine is. The
founders would not have approved of constable Bob writing down the names
of everyone who passed by on horse, cart, buggy, or on foot, they
certainly wouldn't approve of officer Bob Speed's new fangled
computerized camera doing it either.

And it's going to take car theives about 30 seconds to outwit this
system. Steal the plate of another car! If the system improves to detect
make and model differences, then they'll just steal one from the same
make and model.

This isn't about stolen vehicles, it's about tracking law abiding
citizens. Any half wit thief knows how to outwit this system.

> Longman said that might help track down a vehicle stolen while its
> owner was away and doesn't learn of the theft until later. He said a
> "significant number" of stolen-vehicle reports are actually fraud by
> owners behind on payments who dispose of their vehicles.

So the state is doing the insurance companies's work yet again.

> Lt. Robert Ticer, commander of the DPS vehicle theft task force, said
> information might be stored for up to three months.

Or 30 years. Storage is so damn cheap it's not like the government
couldn't afford to store it all forever.

> Alessandra Meetze, state director of the American Civil Liberties
> Union, said scanning license plates, by itself, is not a problem.
> "But the concern would be that they start tracking people," she said.
> That, she said, creates the "potential for abuse."

Therefore the state cannot be allowed to do it.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:
>> Nice spin they put on it, saying that it's all about finding stolen
>> vehicles, and only later admitting that "oh, well, yeah, it could also
>> be used to track people" (which they then attempt to spon as a
>> benefit).
>
> Seems like you get it now.
>
>> http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/144548
>
>> PHOENIX ? State police can't keep your car from being stolen. But new
>> equipment being installed on patrol cars could result in your getting
>> it back ? and faster.
>> The Department of Public Safety has installed a system on the front of
>> six vehicles ? with more planned ? that "reads" the license plates of
>> other cars and trucks on the road.
>
> This sounds like the same tracking system that is presently in use in
> the UK. If it isn't it's the same theme.
>
>> The new system is raising some privacy concerns.
>> Longman said no one's privacy is invaded since the vehicles are
>> traveling on public highways.
>> But he acknowledged the system is capable of storing information on
>> all the license plates scanned, including when and where they were
>> spotted, and not just those that trigger a "hit."
>
> And that's the problem. An observer at the side of the road isn't
> recording the plate numbers for later retrivial, the machine is. The
> founders would not have approved of constable Bob writing down the names
> of everyone who passed by on horse, cart, buggy, or on foot, they
> certainly wouldn't approve of officer Bob Speed's new fangled
> computerized camera doing it either.
>
> And it's going to take car theives about 30 seconds to outwit this
> system. Steal the plate of another car! If the system improves to detect
> make and model differences, then they'll just steal one from the same
> make and model.
>
> This isn't about stolen vehicles, it's about tracking law abiding
> citizens. Any half wit thief knows how to outwit this system.

I disagree... I'd say the point is to track people breaking the law.
HOWEVER, I do happen to agree that it does start to push into the realm of
tracking citizens doing ordinary things.

It really isn't much different than video cameras tracking us everywhere.
The typical US citizen living in the city is "burned" onto video dozens if
not hundreds of times a day by both private and public surveillance systems.
Either way, data is stored about people most of the time doing perfectly
legal and ordinary things; the difference with this new system is the data
better indexed and accessible with identifying information. Videocameras
store information that isn't as well indexed or identifiable, but is just as
"intrusive" as the new system.

And I also happen to disagree with your notion that "half-wit" criminals
will simply outwit the system. Some will, some won't. I think you give
most criminals too much credit.

brink

In article >, brink wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, Scott en Aztlán
>> wrote:
>>> Nice spin they put on it, saying that it's all about finding stolen
>>> vehicles, and only later admitting that "oh, well, yeah, it could also
>>> be used to track people" (which they then attempt to spon as a
>>> benefit).
>>
>> Seems like you get it now.
>>
>>> http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/144548
>>
>>> PHOENIX ? State police can't keep your car from being stolen. But new
>>> equipment being installed on patrol cars could result in your getting
>>> it back ? and faster.
>>> The Department of Public Safety has installed a system on the front of
>>> six vehicles ? with more planned ? that "reads" the license plates of
>>> other cars and trucks on the road.
>>
>> This sounds like the same tracking system that is presently in use in
>> the UK. If it isn't it's the same theme.
>>
>>> The new system is raising some privacy concerns.
>>> Longman said no one's privacy is invaded since the vehicles are
>>> traveling on public highways.
>>> But he acknowledged the system is capable of storing information on
>>> all the license plates scanned, including when and where they were
>>> spotted, and not just those that trigger a "hit."
>>
>> And that's the problem. An observer at the side of the road isn't
>> recording the plate numbers for later retrivial, the machine is. The
>> founders would not have approved of constable Bob writing down the names
>> of everyone who passed by on horse, cart, buggy, or on foot, they
>> certainly wouldn't approve of officer Bob Speed's new fangled
>> computerized camera doing it either.
>>
>> And it's going to take car theives about 30 seconds to outwit this
>> system. Steal the plate of another car! If the system improves to detect
>> make and model differences, then they'll just steal one from the same
>> make and model.
>>
>> This isn't about stolen vehicles, it's about tracking law abiding
>> citizens. Any half wit thief knows how to outwit this system.
>
> I disagree... I'd say the point is to track people breaking the law.

Well control freaks do favor tracking and monitoring systems.

> HOWEVER, I do happen to agree that it does start to push into the realm of
> tracking citizens doing ordinary things.

We are in that realm already.

> It really isn't much different than video cameras tracking us everywhere.

You're certainly a frog in warming water.

> The typical US citizen living in the city is "burned" onto video dozens if
> not hundreds of times a day by both private and public surveillance systems.

Your post is an example of how the slipperly slope and incrementalism works.

> Either way, data is stored about people most of the time doing perfectly
> legal and ordinary things; the difference with this new system is the data
> better indexed and accessible with identifying information.

As we slide down the slope to tyranny.

> Videocameras
> store information that isn't as well indexed or identifiable, but is just as
> "intrusive" as the new system.

The government recording and monitoring people is simply wrong. Your
justification amounts to that the water is just 5 degrees warmer than it
was a minute ago.

> And I also happen to disagree with your notion that "half-wit" criminals
> will simply outwit the system. Some will, some won't. I think you give
> most criminals too much credit.

The big ones are in government, they seem to be doing a fine con job on
you.