Anonymous wrote:Clear invasion of privacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the potential problem. A third party collector initiating a surveillance state and selling information related to your whereabouts. This is China and North Korea.

If Fairfax county owns the system, establishes metrics that justify its existence, routinely reports on those metrics and does not share data then you have police using a force multiplier and it might be a valid use of tax payer dollars.

Subtle I know and most on this board won’t see the difference.

Nobody tell PP about her credit card, rewards cards, grocery points, FlexPass, “free” apps, or the cookies on this very site! Subtle, and she may not see the difference.

Anonymous wrote:Here is the potential problem. A third party collector initiating a surveillance state and selling information related to your whereabouts. This is China and North Korea.

If Fairfax county owns the system, establishes metrics that justify its existence, routinely reports on those metrics and does not share data then you have police using a force multiplier and it might be a valid use of tax payer dollars.

Subtle I know and most on this board won’t see the difference.

Anonymous wrote:What would be the concern?

Anonymous wrote:Good. I hope they crack down on the paper tags that are EVERYWHERE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how this is any different than TSA (public sector) looking at your driver's license when you fly. If you want to use public roads, you give up complete privacy.

A scan of your license plate on the outside of your car is not an unwarranted search or seizure like searching the inside of your trunk. You can expect that the contents of your trunk would have privacy.

TSA is not public. It's a government agency.

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how this is any different than TSA (public sector) looking at your driver's license when you fly. If you want to use public roads, you give up complete privacy.

A scan of your license plate on the outside of your car is not an unwarranted search or seizure like searching the inside of your trunk. You can expect that the contents of your trunk would have privacy.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clear invasion of privacy.

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

Why not?

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.

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 wrote:

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 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?