3 comments

  • petcat 1 hour ago
    Flock and ALPR usage is solved in USA if every state adopts New Hampshire's law:

    * Illegal to collect every plate for later analysis

    * Illegal to collect anything except for license plates (no drivers, pedestrians, etc.)

    * Must delete "non hit" plate images within 3 minutes

    * Strict forbidden to upload "non hit" camera imagery off the device

    I would add that it should also require a warrant to access the ALPR data, but it's a great start.

    https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/XXI/261/261-75-b.htm

    • LocalH 38 minutes ago
      The biggest argument against limits on storing "non-hit" data that the pro-Flock crowd is going to use is that "we need the historical data to find evidence of the whereabouts of criminal suspects".
      • rtkwe 19 minutes ago
        Counter point police have been able to prosecute crime without being able to defacto track every single person in the US via car and the corrosive effect of having that ability outweighs the gains. Plus on top of all of that they've proven time and time again they can't be trusted to contain themselves or their collegues from rampant abuse to stalk exes, celebrities, etc. just because they can.
    • trinsic2 55 minutes ago
      Yep that solves everything. Pack your bags guys. War's over on ALPR's [sarcasm]

      Making things illegal does not stop abuse. The cameras should not even be in our communities. There was 0 discussion nor any vote. These things got installed without consent and you want to argue that just placing guardrails that don't even get enforced is going to fix this?

      • aurmc 21 minutes ago
        Ultimately this is the actual right answer. Strong regulation is great, but it won't actually curb abuse enough.

        Nobody ever wanted this except people with unreasonable pearl-clutching arguments about safety. We've had these devices for years now, and we haven't seen studies showing massive safety improvements in communities that are blanketed in these cameras. We've reached a point where cars are drenched in tracking devices -- I left two separate AirTags in my car, and the car itself also came with online tracking from the manufacturer -- and car theft still happens. Desperate people will commit car thefts whether there are cameras tracking them or not.

        These are -- and always have been -- the "cop's ex-girlfriend tracking machine".

        "But now the ALPR has to check the plate against a list of plates that it's been told to scan for and then delete non-hits!" That's great, but if a cop can add plates to the list, then they'll just add the plate for the woman they're stalking to the list and then wait 24 hours to see where she goes. The "non-hit rule" is like telling cops to wear body cams in the hope that they'll stop committing police brutality. Feels nice, but they just keep doing it anyway. Just tear these things down.

      • __MatrixMan__ 16 minutes ago
        They're basically litter.
  • upboundspiral 1 hour ago
    "Our brief details the vast, interconnected network of ALPRs that constantly track drivers around the country and argues that this tracking is a “search” under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

    Totally agree with the EFF here, many thanks to them defending the Constitution, hope they win.

  • largbae 1 hour ago
    This is a great step but it needs to go even farther. The ALPR tools should only be able to store hits on license plates that are under an active warrant.
    • lazyasciiart 40 minutes ago
      I feel like it’d be an uphill battle to say you can’t use it to find e.g a car in an Amber Alert, or actively escaping. But I don’t know, do they already get warrants for that kind of thing?
      • rtkwe 15 minutes ago
        It's a shame cops can't be trusted to not abuse it if given access not through the courts. Every single time a tool like this is given to them without massive fetters it's abused so they don't get to have the toy.

        There's a ton of things that would make policing easier but we don't do them because they destroy other valuable parts of society. It'd be much easier to solve crimes if everyone had to wear networked body cameras and GPS trackers at all times but we don't do that because it destroys far more important things.

    • adzm 1 hour ago
      At least retention periods should differ
    • AnimalMuppet 1 hour ago
      I like it. But it's going to rule out some very useful searches. (Where was that car in the 48 hours before the crime was committed, and in the 24 hours from the crime to the warrant?) So there is going to be great pressure against this idea.
      • jagged-chisel 52 minutes ago
        That kind of thinking is exactly where the "slippery slope" concept comes from. It's all Very Useful, so just keep it all forever!

        Before this technology existed, we didn't have this level of information retention. How did enforcement happen? Slowly (as it should), methodically (as it should.)

        • thaumasiotes 46 minutes ago
          I don't think AnimalMuppet is suggesting that there will be pressure from outlawing searches that are Very Useful for enforcement. I think the suggestion is that the pressure will come from outlawing searches that are Very Useful for rescue.
          • jagged-chisel 30 minutes ago
            If there's any escape hatch from the limits of the system, they'll be abused.

            > Enter warrant ID:

            >> We have to rescue a child from a kidnapper! Enter 'amber alert' as the warrant ID to bypass the warrant check!

            Suddenly, many more searches (that fail to find a given child) are happening.