What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Local police are tracking you in FL, CA, AZ (1 Viewer)

Nobody cares. Typical I guess. Sorry, didn't mean to derail the hundreds of threads arguing about Democrats vs. Republicans & religion. :thumbup:

 
I care, Bob :hifive:

Los Angeles Cops Argue All Cars in L.A. Are Under Investigation

Do you drive a car in the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area? According to the L.A. Police Department and L.A. Sheriff's Department, your car is part of a vast criminal investigation.

The agencies took a novel approach in the briefs they filed in EFF and the ACLU of Southern California's California Public Records Act lawsuit seeking a week's worth of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data. They have argued that "All [license plate] data is investigatory." The fact that it may never be associated with a specific crime doesn't matter.

This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system, in which we assume law enforcement will not conduct an investigation unless there are some indicia of criminal activity. In fact, the Fourth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution exactly to prevent law enforcement from conducting mass, suspicionless investigations under "general warrants" that targeted no specific person or place and never expired.

ALPR systems operate in just this way. The cameras are not triggered by any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; instead, they automatically and indiscriminately photograph all license plates (and cars) that come into view. This happens without an officer targeting a specific vehicle and without any level of criminal suspicion. The ALPR system immediately extracts the key data from the image—the plate number and time, date and location where it was captured—and runs that data against various hotlists. At the instant the plate is photographed not even the computer system itself—let alone the officer in the squad car—knows whether the plate is linked to criminal activity.

Taken to an extreme, the agencies' arguments would allow law enforcement to conduct around-the-clock surveillance on every aspect of our lives and store those records indefinitely on the off-chance they may aid in solving a crime at some previously undetermined date in the future. If the court accepts their arguments, the agencies would then be able to hide all this data from the public.

However, as we argued in the Reply brief we filed in the case last Friday, the accumulation of information merely because it might be useful in some unspecified case in the future certainly is not an "investigation" within any reasonable meaning of the word.

LAPD and LASD Recognize Privacy Interest in License Plate Data

In another interesting turn in the case, both agencies fully acknowledged the privacy issues implicated by the collection of license plate data.

LAPD stated in its brief:

"[T]he privacy implications of disclosure [of license plate data] are substantial. Members of the public would be justifiably concerned about LAPD releasing information regarding the specific locations of their vehicles on specific dates and times. . . . LAPD is not only asserting vehicle owners' privacy interests. It is recognizing that those interests are grounded in federal and state law, particularly the California Constitution. Maintaining the confidentiality of ALPR data is critical . . . in relation to protecting individual citizens' privacy interests"
Click to expand...
The sheriff's department recognized that ALPR data tracked "individuals' movement over time" and that, with only a license plate number, someone could learn "personal identifying information" about the vehicle owner (such as the owner's home address) by looking up the license plate number in a database with "reverse lookup capabilities such as LexisNexis and Westlaw."

The agencies use the fact that ALPR data collection impacts privacy to argue that—although they should still be allowed to collect this information and store it for years—they should not have to disclose any of it to the public. However, the fact that the technology can be so privacy invasive suggests that we need more information on where and how it is being collected, not less. This sales video from Vigilant Solutions shows just how much the government can learn about where you've been and how many times you've been there when Vigilant runs their analytics tools on historical ALPR data. We can only understand how LA police are really using their ALPR systems through access to the narrow slice of the data we've requested in this case.

We will be arguing these points and others at the hearing on our petition for writ of mandate in Los Angeles Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, this coming Friday at 9:30 AM.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm coming around to the "Mosaic Theory" of Privacy.

Consider an illustrative hypothetical. Alice and Bob are having a romantic affair that, for whatever reason, they prefer to keep secret. One evening before a planned date, Bob stops by the corner pharmacy and—in full view of a shop full of strangers—buys some condoms. He then drives to a restaurant where, again in full view of the other patrons, they have dinner together. They later drive in separate cars back to Alice’s house, where the neighbors (if they care to take note) can observe from the presence of the car in the driveway that Alice has an evening guest for several hours. It being a weeknight, Bob then returns home, again by public roads. Now, the point of this little story is not, of course, that a judicial warrant should be required before an investigator can physically trail Bob or Alice for an evening. It’s simply that in ordinary life, we often reasonably suppose the privacy or secrecy of certain facts—that Bob and Alice are having an affair—that could in principle be inferred from the combination of other facts that are (severally) clearly public, because it would be highly unusual for all of them to be observed by the same public. Even more so when, as in Maynard, we’re talking not about the “public” events of a single evening, but comprehensive observation over a period of weeks or months. One must reasonably expect that “anyone” might witness any of such a series of events; it does not follow that one cannot reasonably expect that no particular person or group would be privy to all of them. Sometimes, of course, even our reasonable expectations are frustrated without anyone’s rights being violated: A neighbor of Alice’s might by chance have been at the pharmacy and then at the restaurant. But as the Supreme Court held in Kyllo v US, even when some information might in principle be possible to obtain public observation, the use of technological means not in general public use to learn the same facts may nevertheless qualify as a Fourth Amendment search, especially when the effect of technology is to render easy a degree of monitoring that would otherwise be so laborious and costly as to normally be infeasible.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if there is a way to tell if these things are around? Someone should make an app to locate them.

 
Anyone that trusts their government in this country or the local police, FBI, etc is simply foolish. We are being tracked everywhere we go or potentially if we give them any reason to do so. I realize there are folks who side with the police here and that's fine but we are moving if not already living in a society where we are no longer in control of much. It's bad enough most live in a slave environment of making wealthy people and entities wealthier thinking they are getting ahead but they are barely making ends meet, then add in a government that has us under watch all the time, the Earth is just one big prison or at least in larger cities.

 
Wtf kind of proprietary contract with Haris corp. can make them not have to make public the information obtained? That's kind of broad. They should have no problem releasing information about stuff that poses no threat, but theni guess that admits they are collecting people calls/text.

I bet its something as simple of a box they put out that collects everything within a certain radius. The user then can access any of that information from queries. So, if they don't querey your info then they don't see it, but it's still collected.

 
Sarnoff said:
I care, Bob :hifive:

Los Angeles Cops Argue All Cars in L.A. Are Under Investigation

Click to expand...
While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I just want to point out, for the record, what a hypocrite you are. You were in support of the Arizona law for suspected illegal immigrants. In defending that law, you expressed no problem whatsoever with Hispanics being asked for papers to prove they were here legally. You have called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, which would be impossible to do without much greater (draconian in fact) police power.

It appears you are only concerned about greater police power when YOU are possibly it's intended victim.

 
timschochet said:
Sarnoff said:
I care, Bob :hifive:

Los Angeles Cops Argue All Cars in L.A. Are Under Investigation

Click to expand...
While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I just want to point out, for the record, what a hypocrite you are. You were in support of the Arizona law for suspected illegal immigrants. In defending that law, you expressed no problem whatsoever with Hispanics being asked for papers to prove they were here legally. You have called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, which would be impossible to do without much greater (draconian in fact) police power.

It appears you are only concerned about greater police power when YOU are possibly it's intended victim.
Click to expand...
And we're off.....

 
timschochet said:
Sarnoff said:
I care, Bob :hifive:

Los Angeles Cops Argue All Cars in L.A. Are Under Investigation

Click to expand...
While I don't necessarily disagree with your position here, I just want to point out, for the record, what a hypocrite you are. You were in support of the Arizona law for suspected illegal immigrants. In defending that law, you expressed no problem whatsoever with Hispanics being asked for papers to prove they were here legally. You have called for the deportation of all illegal immigrants, which would be impossible to do without much greater (draconian in fact) police power.

It appears you are only concerned about greater police power when YOU are possibly it's intended victim.
Click to expand...
I never said anything of the sort and in no way are the situations similar.

You, however, despite having a preteen daughter, believe it's OK for an adult man to have sex with a 12 year old girl as long as she has grown into a training bra. So let's not discuss who's positions are more hypocritical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am for the concept of these devises being available, but being in use 24/7 is not acceptable. I feel like I am living inside an episode of Person of Interest and the machine is watching and gathering everything everywhere.

 
St. Louis Bob said:
Nobody cares. Typical I guess. Sorry, didn't mean to derail the hundreds of threads arguing about Democrats vs. Republicans & religion. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I don't get the paranoia about this stuff. What are they gonna know, that I went to Stop n' Shop today for diapers, then the liquor store, then went home and drank a bottle of red wine with my wife on the couch as we watched a movie rental?

Tomorrow I'll go to work. They wanna watch my commute? Go for it. It's a total blast.

:shrug:

 
I am still waiting for the speeding tickets to commence from EZPass data. They know exactly how long it took you to get from point A to point B and if your average speed is X above the limit, ticket in the mail. I think we will see this in some state soon enough. It is an easy offshoot of speed cams and red light cams, but you can get so many more people faster.

 
The Big Guy said:
I am still waiting for the speeding tickets to commence from EZPass data. They know exactly how long it took you to get from point A to point B and if your average speed is X above the limit, ticket in the mail. I think we will see this in some state soon enough. It is an easy offshoot of speed cams and red light cams, but you can get so many more people faster.
Click to expand...
If they start doing that, that's when I'll start to care. I blaze through the EZpass fast lanes.
 
Otis said:
St. Louis Bob said:
Nobody cares. Typical I guess. Sorry, didn't mean to derail the hundreds of threads arguing about Democrats vs. Republicans & religion. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I don't get the paranoia about this stuff. What are they gonna know, that I went to Stop n' Shop today for diapers, then the liquor store, then went home and drank a bottle of red wine with my wife on the couch as we watched a movie rental?

Tomorrow I'll go to work. They wanna watch my commute? Go for it. It's a total blast.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I don't care if they know where I am either. But I fully support making the government jump through every hoop to justify their actions.

 
Christo said:
Otis said:
St. Louis Bob said:
Nobody cares. Typical I guess. Sorry, didn't mean to derail the hundreds of threads arguing about Democrats vs. Republicans & religion. :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I don't get the paranoia about this stuff. What are they gonna know, that I went to Stop n' Shop today for diapers, then the liquor store, then went home and drank a bottle of red wine with my wife on the couch as we watched a movie rental?

Tomorrow I'll go to work. They wanna watch my commute? Go for it. It's a total blast.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
I don't care if they know where I am either. But I fully support making the government jump through every hoop to justify their actions.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

:shudder:

 
It is not necessarily about this stuff, although I understand the concern. The real question is, if there is not pushback here, what surveillance is coming next? Technology continues to advance. And while there was once a time when the majority of politicians were middle of the road, and could be relied on to use common sense to limit the more extreme elements in either party, that is no longer true. It is very partisan now, and more extreme surveillance in the future will be used to further partisan ends.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe T said:
Rich Conway said:
I care. Seems blatantly illegal to me.
Click to expand...
Agree with Rich.

Also wonder what kind of people think it is legal to do this.
Click to expand...
What if it is legal? Why do we have to wait for the executive branches to experiment with it, the judicial branch to rule on it? We all agree (or at least a bipartisan majority of us agree) it's wrong, so why don't we hold our spineless politicians accountable for not doing anything about it? Our elected officials need to step up or step out, not wait for some court to rule.

 
Sarnoff said:
I'm coming around to the "Mosaic Theory" of Privacy.

Consider an illustrative hypothetical. Alice and Bob are having a romantic affair that, for whatever reason, they prefer to keep secret. One evening before a planned date, Bob stops by the corner pharmacy and—in full view of a shop full of strangers—buys some condoms. He then drives to a restaurant where, again in full view of the other patrons, they have dinner together. They later drive in separate cars back to Alice’s house, where the neighbors (if they care to take note) can observe from the presence of the car in the driveway that Alice has an evening guest for several hours. It being a weeknight, Bob then returns home, again by public roads. Now, the point of this little story is not, of course, that a judicial warrant should be required before an investigator can physically trail Bob or Alice for an evening. It’s simply that in ordinary life, we often reasonably suppose the privacy or secrecy of certain facts—that Bob and Alice are having an affair—that could in principle be inferred from the combination of other facts that are (severally) clearly public, because it would be highly unusual for all of them to be observed by the same public. Even more so when, as in Maynard, we’re talking not about the “public” events of a single evening, but comprehensive observation over a period of weeks or months. One must reasonably expect that “anyone” might witness any of such a series of events; it does not follow that one cannot reasonably expect that no particular person or group would be privy to all of them. Sometimes, of course, even our reasonable expectations are frustrated without anyone’s rights being violated: A neighbor of Alice’s might by chance have been at the pharmacy and then at the restaurant. But as the Supreme Court held in Kyllo v US, even when some information might in principle be possible to obtain public observation, the use of technological means not in general public use to learn the same facts may nevertheless qualify as a Fourth Amendment search, especially when the effect of technology is to render easy a degree of monitoring that would otherwise be so laborious and costly as to normally be infeasible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Link

:goodposting:

 
Psychopav said:
Joe T said:
Rich Conway said:
I care. Seems blatantly illegal to me.
Click to expand...
Agree with Rich.

Also wonder what kind of people think it is legal to do this.
Click to expand...
What if it is legal? Why do we have to wait for the executive branches to experiment with it, the judicial branch to rule on it? We all agree (or at least a bipartisan majority of us agree) it's wrong, so why don't we hold our spineless politicians accountable for not doing anything about it? Our elected officials need to step up or step out, not wait for some court to rule.
Click to expand...
It probably is legal; I'm sure there are judges who would rule in favor of it. Doesn't matter how much it violates the Constitution.

 
No human has ever taken even just a little bit of power over others and then decided to use it in terrible, terrible, ways. I also fully support how the police in some States are arresting people for taking video or pictures of them.

 
St. Louis Bob said:
No human has ever taken even just a little bit of power over others and then decided to use it in terrible, terrible, ways. I also fully support how the police in some States are arresting people for taking video or pictures of them.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Our governments, at the national, state and town level have our best interests at heart, and we can trust them not to overstep their bounds.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/09/us/hampton-florida-corruption/

 
Remember the good ole days when it was only George W masturbating in the basement of the white house to granny's phone calls?

Now we have a full on government circle jerk whacking it to every call, text, internet message board post, and red light camera.

AMERICA #### YEAH,

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nirad3
Summer Cornhole in Orange County, CA?
Replies
8
Views
153
El Floppo
El Floppo
Max Power
Transnational crime ring targeting pro players' homes
Replies
26
Views
757
Soulfly3
Soulfly3
kutta
***Official 2025 Footballguy T-Shirt Exchange***
Replies
47
Views
720
kutta
kutta

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top