Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers

[Becker]

The Second Amendment was written to ensure "government by the consent of the governed," i.e., to prevent tyranny. Obviously such a situation can't be ensured unless citizens have the physical ability to overthrow their government if they are forced into that position. This doesn't require citizens to have the same arms as the military, but simply enough armed force to wage an effective guerrilla war. Sheer force of numbers and stealth can take care of any remaining imbalances of power.

That's where all this new surveillance technology is coming into play. Most surveillance tech that can be used to foil common crimes can also be used to deny stealth to those who are legitimately resisting a tyrannical government. It can also be used against peaceful dissidents. That is unacceptable to any sensible person. Any major imbalance of power in the world that allows some to do as they please to others is an extremely dangerous thing, and history has shown this again and again.

does the 2nd Amendment protect your right to own and operate a nuclear missile?
And are citizens allowed under the constitution to own any and all possible arms, even those which are superior to what its government owns?

 

[pcosmar]

My belief is that humans have no rights, .

That has become abundantly clear.

 

[Peace Piper]

License plate is not a personal liberty. You are not obligated to drive, nor do you have a right to drive without license and permission.

From the article:

The Washington Post is reporting that police in D.C. are beefing up the area covered by license plate cameras. More than 250 cameras in D.C. and its suburbs are constantly hard at work, grabbing license plate numbers and sticking them into databases. The police aren’t exactly doing this quietly, but it’s being done with “virtually no public debate.”

That is a step beyond being required to be licensed. That is tracking.

Apparently, random real time license plate reading is being practiced by some police departments:

Informant newsletter that explains them, and above is a picture of what the cameras look like mounted to a patrol car:

In about 45 seconds, the MPH 900 can do what it would take an officer and dispatcher more than an hour to accomplish: run a parking lot full of license plates.

Kansas City Police now have seven cars outfitted with the Mobile Plate Hunter license plate reader system, and they hit the road near the end of June. The system takes infrared pictures of license plates and compares them to a hot list database stocked with information about warrants and stolen vehicles. It also archives each vehicle’s plate and maps it, so over time, investigators can follow a car’s movements.

“This is just a tool,” said Sergeant Michael Hicks of the Research and Development Division. “It alerts the officer of a warrant or something wanted on the plate and prompts the officer to call a dispatcher to compare it to the live database.”

The plate reader database is updated just once daily. It includes a prioritized list from criminal justice databases ALERT, MULES and NCIC of things like felony warrants, stolen vehicles and stolen plates. But because those things change by the minute, Sergeant Hicks said patrol officers must work with a dispatcher the old-fashioned way to compare a license plate to the live database that is updated in real time before being able to stop a potential suspect. In fact, Hicks said the cameras were purchased – at the cost of about $24,000 each – in accordance with research the department is doing to develop a real-time crime center.

The cameras are mounted to the back of regularly marked patrol cars. One is deployed in each of the six patrol divisions and one in the Special Operations Division. Sergeant Hicks said they can take pictures at a distance of about 25 to 30 feet and at highway speeds. One system can run 7,000 license plates a day before the data needs to be moved wirelessly to one of KCPD’s servers. Once it’s there, Sergeant Hicks said the real value of the plate readers becomes evident.

“The main benefit is in investigations,” he said. “All the data can be queried later on from the back end in an investigation.”

Sergeant Hicks said he hopes officers run the cameras 24/7.

“The best way to deploy (the plate readers) is to keep them rolling all the time and never stop them so they’re always gathering data,” Sergeant Hicks said.

Work is underway to link the data that will be collected by KCPD’s plate readers with other agencies across the state and around the nation. In the Kansas City area, the Lenexa and North Kansas City police departments already have the plate readers in place, as does the Jackson County Sheriff’s Department.

http://kcpdchief.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html

and one last thing, from the original article:

In the District, laws are in place that limit the amount of time that surveillance camera footage can be kept. The images must be dumped after 10 days, unless there is an actual investigatory reason to keep them. But right now, there is nothing keeping data from the plate readers from being stored for years.

I don't believe the data will ever be erased. Call me cynical.

 

[Becker]

That has become abundantly clear.

even if I said humans have rights, who cares what I believe?

 

[Becker]

From the article:

That is a step beyond being required to be licensed. That is tracking.

your car does not have a right to not be tracked, and what they do is nothing illegal , certainly no violation of privacy.

Apparently, random real time license plate reading is being practiced by some police departments:

and its not illegal for any other person who can buy such equipment to do the same.

and one last thing, from the original article:

I don't believe the data will ever be erased. Call me cynical.

you assume your cellphone GPS data is erased, right?

 

[pcosmar]

I have some idea why 2nd amendment was written. however, I am unaware citizens are allowed the same arms and equipment as military.

The second half of you statement contradicts the first.

And from the writings of the Founders it is clear that the citizens were supposed to have superior arms to the military, or at least equal but vastly outnumbering the Military.

The power of arms was intended to be in the hands of the people. Not the Government.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

 

[amy31416]

I have the right to have nuclear missiles...that doesn't mean that I want them or have the ability to obtain them. This argument is absurd.

 

[Created4]

My belief is that humans have no rights

What is your belief based on? An observation of what you see happening?

I define rights as, that which society owes to protect, without exception.

Who or what determines this obligation of "society?" How do you define "society"?

And rights do not exist unless they are practiced.

Ok, thanks for explaining. I am not familiar with kind of belief. So my questions at this point are an attempt to understand your premises, not debate them (how can one debate something they don't understand?) This last one about rights not existing unless they are practiced is the most intriguing. What about contracts, for example? If I have a contract with someone that affords me rights, but choose not to practice my rights, does that mean I have forfeited my rights according to this belief?

 

[Peace Piper]

your car does not have a right to not be tracked, and what they do is nothing illegal , certainly no violation of privacy.

Well our interpretation of a few amendments differs.

and its not illegal for any other person who can buy such equipment to do the same.

That will be a question for the courts, I don't believe I have the right to track anyone. We shall see. If someone in my neighborhood was scanning my plate every time I drove by his house, I would sue.

you assume your cellphone GPS data is erased, right?

My store bought prepay cannot be associated with me, other than from the numbers called and received. Not perfect, but I didn't cough up my SS or bank account # or CC#.

I will *not* be tracked. Period, end of story, thanks.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

A strawman argument, how illogical. Should I accept this as your concession?

Oh man, what's next; you're going to say someone is using a red herring? I hate pseudo-intellectual debate talk.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

does the 2nd Amendment protect your right to own and operate a nuclear missile?

I believe it does not. The reason is that a nuclear missile can't be used, even properly, without harming innocent people.

And are citizens allowed under the constitution to own any and all possible arms, even those which are superior to what its government owns?

Yes, as long as those arms can be used without harming or gravely endangering innocent people (which would rule out bioweapons, nukes, etc.).

I also want to comment on this:

My belief is that humans have no rights, and those who have power, whether corporations, criminals or government, create privileges.

In a purely practical sense, you are correct. Rights are a moot issue if the power doesn't exist to back them up. This is why I constantly implore people to arm themselves to the best of their ability -- not only with potent firearms, but with night vision (preferably thermal) equipment, body armor, etc. -- and to be prepared to die to defend what they believe in. (There's no point in avoiding death at all costs, since it WILL get each of us sooner or later.)

However, are we prepared to say, e.g., that a child has no right not to be brutally raped as long as some sick bastard can get away with doing such a thing? I'm not. The idea fills me with disgust. And THAT is what I believe is ultimately the origin of "rights" and the closely-related concept of "morality" itself: certain hard-wired human emotions that regulate certain views of our own behavior and that of those around us.

Many believe instead that rights and morality have divine origins. I don't see any reason to believe this, but that's not important to me: I still consider such people allies.

In any case, if "might makes right," then there's no reason to support having a government. Why not just let water find its own level and allow the strongest to survive in a dog-eat-dog world?

 

[Becker]

I believe it does not. The reason is that a nuclear missile can't be used, even properly, without harming innocent people.

thanks, sounds reasonable.

Yes, as long as those arms can be used without harming or gravely endangering innocent people (which would rule out bioweapons, nukes, etc.).

although no language states such, it's a reasonable inference. With that in mind, is it not also a reasonable inference to say that license plates or licensed privilege to drive, are reasonable restrictions to protect endangering innocent people, that which was much less likely in the era of horses and chariots?

I also want to comment on this:

In a purely practical sense, you are correct. Rights are a moot issue if the power doesn't exist to back them up. This is why I constantly implore people to arm themselves to the best of their ability -- not only with potent firearms, but with night vision (preferably thermal) equipment, body armor, etc. -- and to be prepared to die to defend what they believe in. (There's no point in avoiding death at all costs, since it WILL get each of us sooner or later.)

However, are we prepared to say, e.g., that a child has no right not to be brutally raped as long as some sick bastard can get away with doing such a thing? I'm not.

For that, you must concede not all humans are required to use responsibility, and there's good reason for that.

The idea fills me with disgust. And THAT is what I believe is ultimately the origin of "rights" and the closely-related concept of "morality" itself: certain hard-wired human emotions that regulate certain views of our own behavior and that of those around us.

Many believe instead that rights and morality have divine origins. I don't see any reason to believe this, but that's not important to me: I still consider such people allies.

In any case, if "might makes right," then there's no reason to support having a government. Why not just let water find its own level and allow the strongest to survive in a dog-eat-dog world?

I support government whenever it's practical, I think you'd agree with me (we just disagree what is practical and what is good)

 

[Becker]

The second half of you statement contradicts the first.

And from the writings of the Founders it is clear that the citizens were supposed to have superior arms to the military, or at least equal but vastly outnumbering the Military.

The power of arms was intended to be in the hands of the people. Not the Government.

So you believe the constitution has given you the right to own and operate nuclear missiles? Any law which restricts civilians to own any arms which are privileged to military is "unconstitutional" according to you?

 

[Becker]

I have the right to have nuclear missiles...that doesn't mean that I want them or have the ability to obtain them. This argument is absurd.

just asking if the right is there, gotta start somewhere. What you want is irrelevant, I want it. And if it were legal I'd find money to obtain it.

 

[Becker]

What is your belief based on? An observation of what you see happening?

yes

Who or what determines this obligation of "society?" How do you define "society"?

a society is a group of people living together in close proximity, which their actions affect another.
Society determines their own obligations. In short society determines rights

Ok, thanks for explaining. I am not familiar with kind of belief. So my questions at this point are an attempt to understand your premises, not debate them (how can one debate something they don't understand?) This last one about rights not existing unless they are practiced is the most intriguing. What about contracts, for example? If I have a contract with someone that affords me rights, but choose not to practice my rights, does that mean I have forfeited my rights according to this belief?

contracts are a voluntary surrender of rights. and yes, I would say in that case, you forfeited your rights, but may still exercise them as long as the contract says so.

 

[Becker]

Oh man, what's next; you're going to say someone is using a red herring? I hate pseudo-intellectual debate talk.

he then goes back and admits he agrees with the person who called my post "fascist" and "it's what it is".

 

[pcosmar]

So you believe the constitution has given you the right to own and operate nuclear missiles? Any law which restricts civilians to own any arms which are privileged to military is "unconstitutional" according to you?

I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits it. Practicality and purpose make it both unlikely and unnecessary.

But arms armor and artillery should rightly be in the hands of the people. Common man should have a reasonable ability to repel and retaliate against any attack by the government, or to remove the government as necessary.

 

[Becker]

I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits it. Practicality and purpose make it both unlikely and unnecessary.

But arms armor and artillery should rightly be in the hands of the people. Common man should have a reasonable ability to repel and retaliate against any attack by the government, or to remove the government as necessary.

thanks.

Looks like somebody disagrees. One guy tells me nucular missiles are high risk an endanger innocents, so its reasonable to not have a right to them, your interpretation is, no limits period.

 

[pcosmar]

Any law which restricts civilians to own any arms which are privileged to military is "unconstitutional" according to you?

There are no arms privileged to the Government In fact the Government was meant to be disarmed, not citizens.

Somewhere it got assbackwards.

 

[amy31416]

just asking if the right is there, gotta start somewhere. What you want is irrelevant, I want it. And if it were legal I'd find money to obtain it.

If you really want it, build it. Good luck. Personally, I think the right is there, but I'm not a legal professional.