Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Short tangent to the REAL "Big Brother" - Anybody watch the show?

[O Really]

I read that article too. Made me wonder at what point the practice becomes objectionable. ACLU didn't seem to mind them doing the scan, didn't mind them keeping the data for "weeks" (an info box in the article in the AC-T, not shown in the Yahoo excerpt). It's beginning to appear the objection isn't to a given practice, but to the technology that makes that practice more effective or whatever. If the cop was reading plates and looking them up manually, then logging on a list, probably nobody would notice. But the surveillance and the records are the same - just more difficult to collect and use. Can one really object to a long-held practice just because it is now easier to do it? Cops have always tried to catch speeders. Sometimes by following and recording their own speed. Then they got timers across the road, radar, vascar, planes - now probably satellite, whatever. Can we now go back and say we don't want cops tracking speed because they've gotten too good at it? (actually, that would be a "yes" from me, but that's not the point )

[O Really]

Well, what percentage of people driving around do you suppose are driving with active warrants or stolen/illegal plates? I'd say it's small. But if you had one guy that napped a kid and went through a toll booth, it would be real helpful to have a record of all plates going through that booth, right? The percentage of "bad guys" is always (hopefully) going to be small, but how are you going to find them if you don't look in public places?

Anyway, so I've got this monitored security system that records every door or window opening, as well as any power outage, tampering, sensor battery problem, yada. So if I leave for a week, it shows the system is armed and never unarmed. A clear signal I'm not there. As far as I know, the feds don't monitor this, but if they did, would I be more at risk from them, or from some nameless geek at the security company who has an accomplice who can access places where people are gone and bypass their codes? IMNVHO, the risks of either are very low, and certainly not enough to quit having monitored security, but that if I had to pick, I'd rather the feds have my info than the geek.

[O Really]

We differ on what the feds have done, are doing and might do but this particular issue is not about the feds, it's about every Arpaio, Davis and Medford out there, along with the juicer dog shooters you detest.

I know the license plate issue isn't about the feds. It was just a tangent on data collection. Should have been more clear. Anyway, FWIW I still find the feds less harmful or potentially harmful than the Arpaios, Davis's and Medfords, but despite the job of sheriff being a magnet for high-ego, authority abusing jackasses, there are a lot more decent ones than dirty.

[Ombudsman]

I read that article too. Made me wonder at what point the practice becomes objectionable. ACLU didn't seem to mind them doing the scan, didn't mind them keeping the data for "weeks" (an info box in the article in the AC-T, not shown in the Yahoo excerpt). It's beginning to appear the objection isn't to a given practice, but to the technology that makes that practice more effective or whatever. If the cop was reading plates and looking them up manually, then logging on a list, probably nobody would notice. But the surveillance and the records are the same - just more difficult to collect and use. Can one really object to a long-held practice just because it is now easier to do it? Cops have always tried to catch speeders. Sometimes by following and recording their own speed. Then they got timers across the road, radar, vascar, planes - now probably satellite, whatever. Can we now go back and say we don't want cops tracking speed because they've gotten too good at it? (actually, that would be a "yes" from me, but that's not the point )

Once again the outrage is mainly coming from those who are clueless to the capabilities of current technology. It's like the Obama teleprompter jokes. They only make sense to people who never knew what a teleprompter was prior to seeing Obama use one.

[O Really]

There are a lot more children that don't kill a sibling if they find a gun than do. That doesn't mean I think they should be given easy access to guns.

True, but neither can you refuse to give law enforcement officers guns just because some of them might shoot a dog or an old lady with a lighter.

[O Really]

Odd. It sure looks to me like the objection is to keeping the data, and thus tracking innocent Americans' travel, for years and/or indefinitely. Of course no one minds if the technology just more efficiently captures plates associated with existing warrants. As you say cops have long done that "by hand".

So how much actual "tracking of innocent Americans' travel" do we expect to occur from these law enforcement units? Keeping in mind some of them are the same ones that can't keep up with the stuff in their own evidence lockers. I certainly have no problem with a law saying they can't keep this type of data longer than X time, but whether they keep it or not I don't see they'd likely be browsing around in it for kicks and giggles. Maybe stalking the guy who's dating their ex, though.

[O Really]

"stalking the guy who's dating their ex", political opponents, budget-cutting city council members, the next Red Scare, Palestinian solidarity activists, sanctuary for Hispanic immigrants workers, the possibilities are endless.

Did you look at the ACLU report's RECOMMENDATIONS on pg. 32? What do you think?

"Possibilities are endless" - Sure, but "probabilities" not so much. Overall, I have no problem with the ACLU recommendations, nor anything to add. I'd go for the "months" however, rather than the "weeks."

[O Really]

There are a lot of ways use of data can be monitored. For example, I have access through Lexis-Nexis to a lot of databases, some of which are restricted by, for example, Gramm-Leach-Blighly, SOX, or other consumer protection laws. To access any of these databases, you have to click on a reason that gives you valid access permission. You can lie, of course, but there is a record of your statement and records of your search. Searches are audited periodically, and sometimes you get asked questions about searches you made and have to offer additional explanation or evidence that the access was made in accordance with the law. I've never been found with improper access, but I'm thinking if you were, you'd at a minimum lose your Lexis-Nexis access, get severely criticized by your employer, and maybe have your knee capped or find a horse head in your bed. Who knows? Point being, you don't have to ban databases in order to have a reasonable level of control over their use.

[O Really]

Cool, we have little disagreement then. No one realistic expects that we will "ban databases", it's all about "a reasonable level of control over their use."

I added "civil rights leaders, closeted gays" while you were posting. What are the "probabilities" that we would have such a string of corrupt and power-abusing LEOs in our little corner of WNC?

If we keep electing sleaze-bag sheriffs, I'd say it's pretty high. But technology doesn't turn an otherwise honest sheriff into a sleaze-bag, and denial of tech doesn't keep him from being a sleaze-bag.

[O Really]

True, but technology does give a sleaze-bag sheriff a lot more power to be sleazy in ways he couldn't before.
Yes, but following that line of thought to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't want to give the sleaze-bag any more tools, equipment, or tech or any sort that would enable him to be more sleazy than he could be in a dark empty room with no electricity. That my seem like a good idea to me in fun, but from a practical standpoint, I'd rather provide the best available tools, equipment, technology and training for law enforcement and concentrate on removal of the sleaze bags as a separate issue.
Then, there are all the people working to rein in police abuses. I once got arrested while legally standing on the sidewalk watching the cops violently break up a peaceful march against, you guessed it, police abuses.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say.
But after being shocked, one would have to recognize that if there is a protest against police abuses, there are probably police abusers around in the area of the protest. I'm guessing the protest against police abuses probably wasn't in, say, Biltmore Forest.

[O Really]

Your "logical conclusion" contradicts your "I have no problem with the ACLU recommendations".

No, it was a small city/large town out West not known for having "police abusers" and the peaceful march was specific to police abuses that weekend. Nice try.

Does not. I didn't say I favored the "logical conclusion" except in a fun fantasy. The ACLU recommendations are, IMNVHO, reasonable and don't infringe on legitimate uses of the data. For example, I can think of lots of reasons to collect the data, and reasons to keep it for, say, up to a year. Can't think of much likely use after that.

You protested "Police abusers" in a town that had no (previously known) abusive police? Isn't that a lot like protesting snowmobile races in Daytona?

[O Really]

So, if you were a rogue cop who wanted to do something to intimidate or silence a critic, would you sort through license plate data to try to establish a routine or habit where you could head him off at the pass sometime in the future, or would you just stick a gps tracker under his car? Either one is illegal, if used for illegal purposes. Which is easier? Which is more reliable? Which is more likely?

[Troll Patrol]

It seems these board has turned into a conversation between Vrede and O Really with occasional stupid comments from Ombudsmen.

[neoplacebo]

So, if you were a rogue cop who wanted to do something to intimidate or silence a critic, would you sort through license plate data to try to establish a routine or habit where you could head him off at the pass sometime in the future, or would you just stick a gps tracker under his car? Either one is illegal, if used for illegal purposes. Which is easier? Which is more reliable? Which is more likely?

I'd say it's more likely that the rogue cop would enlist the help of his buddies on the force to go after you, albeit before being discovered to be "rogue" or else the rogue cop would just come by your house late at night with his rogue gun and kill your ass, or if he's into melodrama, he might follow you for a day and select his best opportunity. My point is that the dissemination of this collected data is probably not distributed to every cop. The US government is so compartmentalized, it's debatable as to whether they could act on information if they even had it. Witness the flying school Saudis and Egyptians that trained here in plain sight before 9/11. Granted, this NSA gig came along after that, but it's been documented that the dots to be connected were there if only the alphabet boys had talked to each other instead of cheerleading their own agencies.

[billy.pilgrim]

So, if you were a rogue cop who wanted to do something to intimidate or silence a critic, would you sort through license plate data to try to establish a routine or habit where you could head him off at the pass sometime in the future, or would you just stick a gps tracker under his car? Either one is illegal, if used for illegal purposes. Which is easier? Which is more reliable? Which is more likely?

I'd say it's more likely that the rogue cop would enlist the help of his buddies on the force to go after you, albeit before being discovered to be "rogue" or else the rogue cop would just come by your house late at night with his rogue gun and kill your ass, or if he's into melodrama, he might follow you for a day and select his best opportunity. My point is that the dissemination of this collected data is probably not distributed to every cop. The US government is so compartmentalized, it's debatable as to whether they could act on information if they even had it. Witness the flying school Saudis and Egyptians that trained here in plain sight before 9/11. Granted, this NSA gig came along after that, but it's been documented that the dots to be connected were there if only the alphabet boys had talked to each other instead of cheerleading their own agencies.

not a good example. the pilots were very clearly reported to the big boys and the agents was told to move along, there is nothing here
just as lil bush did with info from the clinton admin -

it wasn't operation northwoods but it was a, let's sit back and see if we get our excuse

[neoplacebo]

I think it's a good example of the intelligence gathering agencies not communicating or focusing efforts in an efficient way; evidently lots of other people thought that, too, since the Homeland Security Department was created shortly after this revelation of non focus. But that's just me. So we now have this super surveillance NSA thing, license plate scanners, squealers, advocates, detractors, whatever. It's all here. And it's free.

[O Really]

So, if you were a rogue cop

Or a non-rogue cop with an approved political agenda.

And therein lies the difference in your view and mine. Even if the individual unlawfully browsing the plate data or attaching the gps has an "approved political agenda" there is still ultimately a "rogue cop" (or commissioner) to start the ball rolling. I don't believe that unlawful use of data or gps is an acceptable part of the US justice system. I believe most LEO's are honest people, who actually believe in "protect and serve" at least until they get burned out by the frustrations inherent in the bureaucracy. And even after burnout, they just turn into "don't cares" rather than actual enemies of the public. I know there are bad cops - I've represented a lot of munis having to deal with them, and been in a lot of disciplinary grievance hearings related to them. But we know about those because they get the press. And they get the press because they're the "man bites dog" not the "dog bites man." You don't make laws, policies, rules, whatever, based on the possibility of an exception. you make them based on what you want to get done, and deal with the exceptions as they arise.

[O Really]

Test post - got "forbidden" message

[O Really]

Question for the "Big Brother" people: If you go to a c a s i n o and pay attention, you'll find that there are hundreds of cameras, plus live humans monitoring everything that happens in the playing area. If you are in the c a s i n o, you can be assured that nothing you do is missed. If you're staying at the c a s i n o hotel (or actually most any hotel) you'll notice cameras in all the hallways, elevators, and parking lots. Surveillance is constant and universal, excluding only b a t h r o o m stalls (maybe) and hotel rooms (maybe). Why do you suppose the c a s i n o s do this?