Fairfax County police to expand use of automated license plate readers this spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clear invasion of privacy.

Disagree. You have no expectation of privacy on a public road.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Fairfax is suffering from police shortages like most of the nation, then using technology is a good thing.

I wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPD executed the last guy that triggered a plate reader.

The chooch with the stolen UHaul who attacked the officer, and tried to steal his gun?

You buy the ticket, you take the ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clear invasion of privacy.

Really, we have a right to the privacy of our license plate number? I don't think so. Of course, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm fairly certain you don't.

Having a log file mapping your daily movements creates a potential source of serious abuse. That kind of information is very powerful and should not be left open to abuse by loosely regulated and secretive groups of people.

DP here. Who are the loosely regulated and secretive people? I’m wondering how you think this information could be used.

FlockSafety, a private third party, will provide the cameras and systems. Very little regulation exists about the collection of these types of data by non-governmental agencies.

Wikipedia is a terrible source, but it's a starting point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_Safety FlockSafety claims to have installations in 1500 cities. That's a reasonably large surveillance network. So what is their retention policy for the collected data? To whom do they sell the data? They claim the customer owns all the data, which expires after 30 days. Of course, Facebook has made similar claims about protecting data. FlockSafety can't ignore a valid warrant for specific information from any federal or local agencies.

FCPD plans to install the plate readers in high-crime areas. That's "broken window" policing which hasn't gone over very well in the past or present. DC is still struggling to explain why the speed cameras appear to be concentrated in lower-income, i.e., minority, neighborhoods. Can FCPD explain why they suspect that more felons are driving around in high-crime neighborhoods without examining the actual crimes causing the high-crime rate? Does excessive graffiti count as high-crime? High crime areas are a dubious metric given the undefined nature of the specific types of crime being targeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

? I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the reasons given in the article in support of these license plate readers. Can you explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) is expanding the use of automated license plate reader technology across the county, despite concerns from civil rights groups.

The department will install 25 automated license plate readers (ALPRs) around Fairfax County by the spring, FCPD spokesperson Sergeant Hudson Bull confirmed to FFXnow.
This expansion of the program comes after an eight-week “test period,” where the camera system was placed in two locations and assisted in “over 35 cases which have led to over 60 arrest charges,” Bull said.
Based on that data, the trial period has now been extended an additional 10 months to Oct. 31, 2023.
Over the next nine months, cameras will watch more than two dozen “high-crime” areas in the county.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2023/02/21/fairfax-county-police-to-expand-use-of-automated-license-plate-readers-this-spring/

Anyone have concerns about this? I know Virginia do not allow speed cameras.

Virginia does allow speed cameras. That is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clear invasion of privacy.

Really, we have a right to the privacy of our license plate number? I don't think so. Of course, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm fairly certain you don't.

Having a log file mapping your daily movements creates a potential source of serious abuse. That kind of information is very powerful and should not be left open to abuse by loosely regulated and secretive groups of people.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should visit China to see how it feels to be tracked.

Yes. Fairfax is China. That’s it.

Increasingly, yes.

China and North Korea love mass surveillance programs like this to make sure their citizens stay inline.

Why do you like that kind of model for society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

? I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the reasons given in the article in support of these license plate readers. Can you explain?

It's a false choice. If I don't support X, then I hate children. It's one of the weakest rhetorical arguments one can make. When all else fails, just shout "Think of the children."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

? I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the reasons given in the article in support of these license plate readers. Can you explain?

It's a false choice. If I don't support X, then I hate children. It's one of the weakest rhetorical arguments one can make. When all else fails, just shout "Think of the children."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

nobody said you hate children. One good reason for these is they have helped find abducted children. And they have found stolen cars too. So you don't think that's the real reason the county wants to install them? What's your theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

? I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the reasons given in the article in support of these license plate readers. Can you explain?

It's a false choice. If I don't support X, then I hate children. It's one of the weakest rhetorical arguments one can make. When all else fails, just shout "Think of the children."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

nobody said you hate children. One good reason for these is they have helped find abducted children. And they have found stolen cars too. So you don't think that's the real reason the county wants to install them? What's your theory?

It's the implied choice. If I don't support plate readers, then I don't care about abducted children. Otherwise, I would support plate readers. It doesn't need to be explicitly said.

Whether I think FCPD has a valid reason to use plate readers, the system is easily abused. There is almost no regulation on private companies aggregating "public" information and then making it available to any third party. The government can't collect this information, so they have third parties do it, like Palantir Technologies.

[Anonymous]

I take more of an issue of seeing 6-15 cars run red lights every.single.day and nothing being done about it. I think speeding cameras and license plate readers are helpful to the police however they can't replace officers pulling red light runners over and this is a major problem in NOVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

? I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the reasons given in the article in support of these license plate readers. Can you explain?

It's a false choice. If I don't support X, then I hate children. It's one of the weakest rhetorical arguments one can make. When all else fails, just shout "Think of the children."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

nobody said you hate children. One good reason for these is they have helped find abducted children. And they have found stolen cars too. So you don't think that's the real reason the county wants to install them? What's your theory?

It's the implied choice. If I don't support plate readers, then I don't care about abducted children. Otherwise, I would support plate readers. It doesn't need to be explicitly said.

Whether I think FCPD has a valid reason to use plate readers, the system is easily abused. There is almost no regulation on private companies aggregating "public" information and then making it available to any third party. The government can't collect this information, so they have third parties do it, like Palantir Technologies.

so what information is it you want to hide - when you're traveling on the public roadways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I take more of an issue of seeing 6-15 cars run red lights every.single.day and nothing being done about it. I think speeding cameras and license plate readers are helpful to the police however they can't replace officers pulling red light runners over and this is a major problem in NOVA.

There are red light cameras that could be deployed to address that issue.

In an era of shrinking law enforcement workforces, these kinds of force multipliers are no brainers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

The same as with speed cameras. People want to speed and not get ticketed. Same here.

But the article says they have helped find some abducted kids (and stolen cars). That's a good thing, right?

Think of the children is scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

? I don't understand what you mean. That was one of the reasons given in the article in support of these license plate readers. Can you explain?

It's a false choice. If I don't support X, then I hate children. It's one of the weakest rhetorical arguments one can make. When all else fails, just shout "Think of the children."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Unironically posted in the thread comparing Fairfax to China and North Korea.